peaka_create_semantic_table

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

Annotations provide only coarse flags (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the table is a queryable view over a saved query rather than a copied dataset. The instruction to remember the chosen projectId also flags conversation-state expectations. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 about five sentences, with the core action and mechanism front-loaded before prerequisite tool guidance. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information, and there is no filler.

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 5-required-parameter creation tool, the description gives enough to select projects, get query/catalog IDs, and understand the resulting artifact. It does not mention return values, conflict behavior if tableName already exists, or verification steps, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the schema already documents every parameter's source. The main text mostly restates the provenance for queryId and catalogId and adds the conceptual 'queryable view' framing, but does not add new per-parameter constraints or formats. A baseline 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a semantic table inside a semantic catalog') and clarifies the underlying mechanism ('backed by an existing saved query... queryable view'). This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like peaka_create_query and peaka_create_semantic_catalog.

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 names the exact predecessor calls needed to obtain queryId and catalogId ('Use peaka_create_query...') and instructs calling peaka_list_projects and asking the user when projectId is unknown. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or alternative table-level tools, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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