peaka_create_semantic_catalog

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint = false and destructiveHint = false, so the tool's mutation profile is already known. The description adds value by disclosing the return value ('Returns the created catalog including its id') and explaining what a semantic catalog groups. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, all purposeful: the core action is front-loaded, the concept is briefly defined, return behavior is stated, and practical projectId guidance is included. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, defines the domain concept, reports the return value, and handles the projectId discovery prerequisite. No critical information is missing.

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%, with both name and projectId documented in the schema. The description itself does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a semantic catalog in the Peaka project' and explains what a semantic catalog is, distinguishing it from related tools like peaka_create_semantic_table and peaka_list_catalogs. It clearly defines the namespace concept and the artifact being produced.

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 guidance on a key precondition: if the projectId is unknown, call peaka_list_projects first and ask the user which project to use, then remember the chosen projectId. It lacks an explicit 'don't use this if...' routing to alternatives like peaka_list_catalogs, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select the tool appropriately.

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