peaka_create_cache

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining that caching stores data locally and that schedules are optional at creation time. Annotations only mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as false, so the description carries the burden of describing the mutation; it does so at a basic level. It does not disclose side effects such as whether creation triggers an initial refresh, how to monitor progress, or whether duplicate caches are handled, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only relevant procedural guidance. The second paragraph about projectId is practical and not redundant with the schema. It loses one point because it somewhat repeats schedule details already present in the input schema, but overall it remains efficient.

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?

The description covers the main action, the project selection workflow, and the schedule options, which is enough for a basic call. It omits guidance on discovering catalogId, schemaName, and tableName, even though sibling list tools exist, and it does not describe what the response will be or how to verify success. For a 4-required-parameter creation tool with no output schema, this leaves noticeable gaps.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds some useful context for the schedule parameters by repeating ISO-8601 examples and noting they can be set later. However, catalogId, schemaName, and tableName are required and lack descriptions in the schema, and the description does not explain how to obtain or format these identifiers. It provides only the general 'table' framing, which is helpful but not sufficient to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a cache for a table in the Peaka project.' It also explains the benefit of caching, which clarifies the tool's intended function. The mention that schedules can be changed later with peaka_update_cache helps distinguish creation from update, and the singular 'a table' implies the batch sibling is a different use case.

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 explicit workflow guidance: if projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects and ask the user, then remember the choice. It also notes that schedule expressions can be set later with peaka_update_cache, providing an alternative for post-creation changes. However, it does not specify when to use peaka_create_cache_batch instead, so it falls short of fully exhaustive usage guidance.

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