Add Code Search Table

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool 'modifies the code search configuration on the instance' and includes a warning to verify table name and fields. This adds context beyond the annotations, which already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The behavioral effect on future searches is also explained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, with three sentences: purpose, prerequisites, and warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a simple 4-parameter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the action, the prerequisite sys_id lookup, the effect on searches, and a safety warning. No output schema is needed, and the description adequately prepares the agent for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including examples and references to lookup_table/lookup_columns. The tool description adds minimal param-specific detail beyond the schema, summarizing requirements but not enriching the semantics further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add a new table to an existing code search group') and its effect ('expanding what gets searched'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_code_search_groups and code_search by focusing on the modification action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit prerequisites: 'Requires the search group's sys_id (get it from list_code_search_groups) and the table name and fields to search.' This tells the agent when to use it and what preparatory steps are needed. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives for when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.