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.