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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the operational behavior: restart with one to two minutes of downtime, maintenance status with resize.to_gb set, new rate applying from the next hour, and safe retries. These details materially inform the agent about side effects and timing.

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 dense but front-loaded: it leads with the core action and size constraint, then covers downtime, pricing, irreversibility, safety and scope. Every sentence provides actionable information without repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: required permission scope, expected downtime, status transitions, billing implications, irreversibility, and retry safety. No critical behavioral detail 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 67%, and the description adds useful meaning for size_gb by clarifying that it controls vCPU, memory and included disk, and that the new size is reflected as size_gb after maintenance. It also explains that retrying the same call is safe, which indirectly supports idempotency_key use, though it does not explicitly document that parameter.

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 specific verb and resource: moving the database to a larger size with more vCPU, memory and included disk. It also distinguishes the operation from alternatives by emphasizing 'Larger sizes only, there is no way back' and pointing to get_database_options for size selection.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool and what to do first: tell the user the new price and downtime before proceeding. It also names the key exclusion ('Larger sizes only') and points to get_database_options for choosing a target size.

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