tmpstate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses TTL (24h), no signup/keys, return values (db URL, admin URL, limits, expiry), and idempotency behavior. Fully transparent about what the tool does and its constraints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core functionality, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers creation behavior, TTL, returned data, usage pattern, and retry semantics. Fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100% with a schema description. Description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of idempotency_key for retries and parallel workers, going beyond the schema's brief description.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a temporary JSON database', specifying the resource (temporary JSON database) and the action (create). Distinguishes from sibling tools like pro_create_database by emphasizing no signup, no keys, and 24h TTL.

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?

Explicit instructions: 'Create once per project/task... reuse it instead of creating again' and for retries using idempotency_key. Provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions side effect of counting against write and document quotas, and implicit collection creation. However, lacks details on authorization needs, rate limits, error conditions, or return behavior. For a write operation, this is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately convey the core action and a key side effect. No unnecessary words or repetition. Excellent front-loading of the main purpose.

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?

Covers the main purpose and significant behavioral aspect (quotas). Lacks explicit mention of error handling or return value, but given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Could be slightly more complete by specifying what happens on failure.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description reinforces the implicit creation for the 'collection' parameter but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

Clearly states the action (Insert a JSON object) and the target resource (collection). Distinguishes from siblings like create_database or delete_document by specifying the operation on a document. Also notes implicit collection creation which adds precision.

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?

Provides implicit usage context (collections are created automatically) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_document or get_document. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads database metadata but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 a single concise sentence with a helpful equivalent endpoint notation. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and minimal complexity, the description covers the tool's purpose and behavior adequately. Missing only explicit safety disclosure (read-only), but the GET equivalent implies it.

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 100% and the schema already describes the db parameter well. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond noting the endpoint alias, which matches the schema description. 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 clearly states the tool retrieves usage, limits, tier, and expiry for a database, with an explicit equivalent endpoint (GET $DB/__meta). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_databases or create_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 implies usage for checking database health or metadata, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pro_list_databases or get_document. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

The description notes 'Irreversible' and implies bulk deletion, which are critical behavioral traits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but could disclose more about side effects (e.g., whether the collection structure remains) or required permissions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler. Efficiently provides usage context and an alternative.

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 destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and distinguishes from a sibling. It could mention what happens to the collection structure itself, but overall it is quite complete.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters, so baseline score 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 clearly states 'Delete every document in a collection at once', which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling 'delete_database' by mentioning an alternative.

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?

Provides a use case ('useful to re-seed') and explicitly contrasts with 'delete_database'. However, it does not mention when not to use or other alternatives like 'delete_document'.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the irreversible nature, the ability to delete expired databases, zero quota consumption, and the two-step confirmation process. It also instructs on post-action cleanup (remove the db URL). This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's effects.

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 concise with no superfluous sentences. It front-loads the purpose ('Destroy a database...'), provides key usage guidance, and ends with actionable instructions. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's irreversible destructive nature, the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains behavior, parameter semantics (with the two-step process), edge cases (expired databases, quota), and post-invocation actions. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance: it explains that 'db' is the URL from creation or a bare capability, and it details the 'confirm' parameter's role in the two-step process, including the need for user approval. This extra context justifies a score above baseline, though the schema descriptions themselves are already clear.

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 specific verbs ('Destroy', 'irreversible') and clearly identifies the resource ('database and all its documents'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing the scope (whole database vs. collection/document) and the immediacy/irreversibility.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('teardown for finished work', 'revocation kill switch') and when it applies (including expired databases). It also provides a critical usage pattern: call without confirm first, show consequences, then retry with confirm='true' after user approval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delete_collection or delete_document, leaving some ambiguity about when those are more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it is never blocked by quotas and frees a document slot. While it could mention permanence or side effects, this is sufficient for a simple deletion 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 deletion tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral information and provides a sibling alternative. It is complete and sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it does not elaborate on syntax or format.

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 clearly states 'Delete one document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'delete_collection' by noting that for emptying a whole collection, that sibling should be used instead.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when not to: 'Never blocked by quotas; frees a document slot' and 'Emptying a whole collection? Use delete_collection instead of looping this.' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns pricing table when no plan given, creates checkout URL when plan given, works on expired databases, and restores them. This is sufficient transparency.

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 informative but slightly lengthy. However, it is front-loaded with the main behavior and organized with conditionals. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the workflow: input behavior, conditions, and follow-up action. It does not detail the return format of the pricing table, but it is adequate for use.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the conditional behavior based on the 'plan' parameter (absent vs. present). It also describes the 'db' parameter as the URL from creation. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's function: extend database lifetime via payment. It distinguishes between without plan (pricing table) and with plan (checkout URL) and covers expired databases. This differentiates it from siblings like create_database or database_status.

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 tells when to use (to extend a database) and provides a crucial guideline: never buy without explicit user approval. It also instructs to call database_status after payment. However, it does not compare to alternatives like pro_checkout or pro_attach_database.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions reading by id and field location, but omits authorization needs, error behavior (e.g., missing doc), or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Very brief, which is efficient, but could include more detail without being verbose. Slightly under-specified for completeness.

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?

Given 3 required params, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description lacks details on return format, error handling, and use case differentiation. Incomplete for effective agent selection.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'by id' linking, so 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 clearly states it reads one document by id and mentions that stored fields are under .data, which distinguishes it from list_documents or delete_document. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_documents). No prerequisites or context of use are provided.

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

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

The description discloses pagination behavior and response shape but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. As a list operation, it is generally safe, but lacks explicit behavioral context beyond pagination.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, response shape, and pagination instruction.

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 list operation with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers response shape and pagination. It does not explain behavior for non-existent collections or the db parameter beyond schema, but is largely sufficient.

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 75%; the description adds meaning for the cursor parameter ('Pass cursor to page') but does not explain db, collection, or limit beyond what the schema already provides. Minimal added value.

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 clearly states the tool lists documents in a collection, specifies the order (oldest first), and distinguishes from siblings like get_document and create_document by indicating a list operation with pagination.

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 implies pagination usage with 'Pass cursor to page' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_document for single documents or provide exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the effects: same URL, same data, TTL removed, quotas raised, and references overage consent. This provides sufficient transparency for the agent to understand the consequences of invoking this 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and effects. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 purpose, effects, and overage consent. While it does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or return values, the tool is relatively simple and the description adequately informs the agent for typical usage. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if the database is already Pro.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds context for the undocumented `accept_overage_usd` parameter by referencing overage consent. For the other parameters, it reinforces the schema descriptions but does not add significant new semantics. Overall, it adds value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attach an existing free/extended database to the Pro account: same URL, same data, TTL removed, quotas raised.' It uses a specific verb ('attach') and resource ('database'), and distinguishes it from siblings like pro_create_database (which creates a new Pro 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 implies the usage scenario (upgrading an existing free/extended database) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pro_create_database or extend_database. It mentions a similarity to pro_create_database regarding overage consent but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Discloses that cancellation schedules deletion of ALL databases (destructive), and that a two-step confirmation is required. No annotations exist, so description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key effect and procedural requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, description mentions the response spells out consequences with concrete dates. For a destructive action, this provides sufficient completeness for an agent to use correctly.

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 already describes both parameters (confirm with const, pro_token optional). Description adds value by clarifying the confirm parameter's usage in the two-step flow and noting pro_token optionality.

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?

Clearly describes the action as canceling the Pro subscription, and elaborates that it schedules deletion of all databases. Distinct from sibling tools which are creation, retrieval, or other operations.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions: call without confirm first, show consequences to user, then retry with confirm='cancel' after approval. Leaves no ambiguity about when to use the tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it persists the pro_token immediately, generates a Stripe checkout URL for payment, and requires explicit user request. It does not elaborate on failure modes or post-payment steps, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and details, second adds a behavioral note, third provides a crucial warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it creates, the cost, included databases, the persistence action, and a usage warning. It could mention post-payment flow but is largely complete.

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?

There are 0 parameters; the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but given no parameters exist, the baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Mint a Pro account token plus a Stripe subscription checkout URL'. It identifies the resource (Pro subscription) and a specific verb (mint). The context of $8/mo and 3 databases differentiates it from sibling tools like pro_cancel or pro_create_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 explicitly warns 'Never start checkout without the user's explicit request', providing a critical usage guideline. It doesn't directly compare to alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the purpose clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool triggers a confirmation flow requiring explicit overage consent and returns a price. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects like whether it is destructive or read-only, though the 'create' verb implies mutation.

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 two sentences long: the first states the purpose, the second explains the workflow. Every word is necessary, no repetition. Information is front-loaded.

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 explains the two-step process (initial call returns confirmation_required with price, second call with accept_overage_usd) and the parameter roles. It does not specify the success response format, but the workflow is clear enough for an agent to handle correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains the 'accept_overage_usd' parameter's purpose (only after user approval) and clarifies that 'pro_token' is optional if the connection already sends authorization. This provides valuable context.

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 clearly specifies creating a new always-on Pro database, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_database' (likely free tier) and 'pro_attach_database'. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 explicit guidance on the overage consent workflow: the tool returns a price, and the agent must relay it and retry with 'accept_overage_usd' after user approval. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the context implies 'create_database' for free tier usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes that URLs are never stored server-side, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication details beyond the token, or has rate limits or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the main function and return data, the second adds an important behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 mentions what is returned (ids, usage, limits, expiry) and the use case, but without an output schema, it does not specify the output format, pagination, or error handling. It is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more complete.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter pro_token. The description adds practical context: the token format (pt_...) and that it is optional if the MCP connection already sends Authorization header. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (Pro account's databases), and what data is returned (ids, usage, limits, expiry). It also explains the use case (reconcile against persisted URLs). This distinguishes it from other database-related sibling tools like create_database or list_documents.

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 implies when to use (fresh session reconciliation) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools. It lacks guidance on choosing between this and tools like database_status or pro_create_database.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no human approval is needed, that capability-shaped strings are redacted, and implies non-destructive behavior. It could be more explicit about what happens after sending (e.g., no guaranteed response), but for a simple feedback tool, this is sufficient. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with 'Optional and free-form' and every sentence adds unique value. It is structured logically: optionality, purpose, content guidelines, and user feedback handling. No waste—each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, what to include/exclude, and handling of user feedback. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without ambiguity.

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 100%, so parameters are described in the schema. The tool description adds value by elaborating on the message content (what to include, what to avoid) and the context for category. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, aiding the agent in crafting appropriate parameter values.

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 clearly states the tool is for sending feedback to the TmpState team. It expands on the purpose by explaining the type of feedback useful (missing features, friction, etc.) and that it's optional and free-form. The verb 'send_feedback' directly matches the action, and no sibling tool handles feedback, so differentiation is clear.

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 explicitly says when to use ('After real use of a database, one short message...') and provides guidance on what not to include (database URLs, capabilities, Pro tokens). It also explains how to relay user feedback. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but given the simple nature, this is adequate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses the shallow-merge behavior, that keys are never deleted, and that it counts against write quota. It lacks info on error handling or idempotency, but the key mutation details are well covered.

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?

Two clear sentences, front-loaded with key behavior ('shallow-merge'), no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 update tool with 4 required params and no output schema, the description covers the merge behavior, quota, and key constraints. Minor gaps: no mention of error cases or idempotency, but overall complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with good descriptions. The description adds overall merge semantics but does not enhance individual parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Shallow-merge a patch into a document' with specific verb and resource. It also specifies behavior (top-level keys overwrite, no key deletion) distinguishing it from create_document or delete_document.

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 explains when to use (to patch a document) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives among many sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with similar tools.

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