create_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation requires a subscription, that it may return a purchase link instead of performing the action, and that credentials are provisioned server-side and shown in the UI—not returned through the connector. This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't detail whether the operation is synchronous, what the success response looks like, or if there are side effects beyond creation.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and includes essential behavioral details (subscription requirement, credential handling) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it an exemplar of concise, structured documentation.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational aspects: what it creates, the prerequisite, the failure mode, and where credentials appear. It doesn't mention the response format or success indicators, but given the description's focus on critical behaviors and the absence of complex parameters, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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?

The schema already documents three of four parameters (name, type, container) with descriptions, leaving only database_name without a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning—it doesn't explain what 'database_name' is for or clarify any parameter interactions. Given the high schema coverage (75%), the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to repeat schema info but could have added context for the undocumented 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 clearly states the tool's function: creating a managed add-on for specific database engines. It lists the engines explicitly (PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like stop_container or deploy, which focus on 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite (purchased subscription) and instructs the agent on the expected behavior when that prerequisite isn't met (relay the purchase link, don't retry). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context of sibling tools makes it obvious when this tool is appropriate—there is no sibling for database creation. This is solid usage guidance.

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