create_index

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the privilege requirement and the specific Oracle error on insufficient authorization, but it does not describe DDL side effects such as table locking, resource consumption, index-name conflicts, or whether the operation can be safely retried.

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 two sentences with no wasted language. The primary action is front-loaded, and the privilege caveat follows directly as supporting detail.

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?

For a DDL creation tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the key authorization prerequisite. It is nearly complete, though it could better route agents away from suggest_index and mention operational side effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Create) and resource (an index on a table), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling read tools like list_indexes and suggest_index. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives a prerequisite for use: it requires CREATE ANY INDEX or table ownership, and failure returns ORA-01031. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as suggest_index or explain_plan, nor does it state any exclusions.

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