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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile (a write that is not destructive) is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a MySQL database scoped to a domain, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether duplicates are rejected, or naming failures beyond what the schema documents.

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?

One tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing redundant, though it is brief enough that the missing usage context is conspicuous.

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 two-parameter mutation tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema fully documents both inputs, plus no output schema to explain, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the key workflow question (relationship to create_database_user) unanswered.

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 parameters (name, domain) fully documented in the schema, including the character constraints on name. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (legt an / creates), resource (MySQL-Datenbank) and scope (auf einer Domain), so the agent can tell it apart from read tools like get_databases or delete_database. However it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling create_database_user, which is the most likely confusion point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the domain must already exist, whether a database user must be created separately), and no mention of the create_database_user sibling. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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