create_metabase_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format is mentioned but without behavioral context about what happens during 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. The opening sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose. Some parameter descriptions could be more detailed (e.g., 'Connection details' is vague), but overall the structure is efficient with minimal wasted space.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) but with output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and mentions the return type, but lacks behavioral context about the creation process, permissions, or error handling. For a mutation tool with this many parameters, more operational guidance would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters (3 required), the description provides excellent parameter semantics. Each parameter is listed with name, type, and brief explanation of purpose (e.g., 'Connection details' for details, 'Enable auto run' for auto_run_queries). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and helps the agent understand what each parameter controls.

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 specific action ('Create a new database connection') and resource ('in Metabase'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_metabase_card or create_metabase_dashboard which create different Metabase resources. The verb 'create' paired with 'database connection' provides unambiguous purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like update_metabase_database and delete_metabase_database, but no indication of when to create versus update, or what prerequisites might be needed. No exclusions or contextual recommendations are provided.

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