create_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a database service' – no mention of side effects, required permissions, whether creation is asynchronous, whether it can fail due to resource limits, or what resources are provisioned. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 extremely short and free of fluff, but it is also under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name with 'database service' and does not add valuable context. While concise, it does not earn its place because it provides little beyond the name.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, post-conditions, return value information, and any caveats about engine selection or password handling. The schema fills some gaps, but the description alone is not sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (projectName, serviceName, and password have descriptions; engine has an enum). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the engine enum choices or confirm that password auto-generation behavior is relevant. The high schema coverage keeps this at baseline 3.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a database service'. It is distinct enough from siblings like create_app or create_project, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other create_* tools. The object 'database service' is specific and aligns with sibling tools inspect_database and destroy_database.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing project), no indication that inspect_database should be used to verify creation, and no mention of when other create_* tools would be more appropriate. The agent gets only a bare action statement.

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