create_database

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is the mutation warning ('this changes panel state') and the required WISP_ALLOW_DATABASES configuration. Useful context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about behavior when the name already exists.

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 short sentences with the action first and the constraint second; there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves open what a successful call returns — notably whether credentials or a password are surfaced — which matters for a database provisioning tool. The inputs, prerequisite flag, and state-change warning are covered, so it is adequate but incomplete on the result side.

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%, with host, name, server_id default, and the connections_from wildcard all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, naming rules, or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Create a database allocation for a server' — which clearly separates it from list_databases, delete_database, and rotate_database_password among the siblings. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, but the creation scope is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage gate: 'Use only when a new database is requested,' which implicitly excludes re-use on existing databases. It also names the enabling configuration flag WISP_ALLOW_DATABASES. No alternative tool is named for checking whether a database already exists, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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