Create DBaaS instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write and open-world nature is covered structurally. The '[WRITE]' prefix reinforces mutation but adds nothing beyond the annotation. The description does add the useful constraint that values must come from list_database_flavors rather than being invented, but it says nothing about side effects, idempotency, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single compact sentence (despite the bracket tag) front-loads the write marker and endpoint, then gives the parameter sourcing rule. No filler, though the OpenAPI/spec reference is somewhat technical noise for an agent.

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 3-required-parameter write tool with no output schema and only 33% schema coverage, the description is thin. It identifies the endpoint and points to a sibling for valid values, which is genuinely helpful, but omits what the call returns, error conditions, region format specifics (left to schema), and consequences of creation.

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 only 33% (only region has a description), so the description must compensate. It specifies that datastoreType and flavorRef should be obtained from list_database_flavors, which adds sourcing guidance for two otherwise undocumented parameters. This partially compensates but leaves the actual formats, allowed values, and constraints for both parameters unexplained.

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+resource: 'CreateDatabaseRequest: POST /regions/{region}/databases' and the '[WRITE]' marker makes the operation type unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings by name, but the verb+resource pairing is clear enough for an agent to identify the tool.

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 implies prerequisites ('datastoreType + flavorRef from list_database_flavors — do not invent values'), which is a useful directive to consult a sibling first. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or what conditions warrant creating a database; the guidance is limited to parameter sourcing rather than usage context.

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