Compose Database From Intent

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

The description states the tool creates a database with presets and optional starter rows, providing basic behavioral context. With no annotations, it fails to disclose edge cases like overwriting existing content in the docId, permission requirements, or error outputs.

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 concise sentences immediately convey the core purpose and key capabilities. No unnecessary words; the description is efficiently structured.

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 6-parameter, complex nested schema and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on return value, error handling, or behavior when docId already contains a database. The sibling tool list suggests many database operations, but the description does not help agents decide when to use this composite tool vs individual database tools.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking 'intent' to presets and 'seedRows' to starter rows, but does not elaborate on 'placement', 'workspaceId', or 'title' beyond what the schema provides. It adequately supports the schema but adds minimal new insight.

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 it creates a database/view from a declarative intent, with specific presets (task_board, issue_tracker) and features (starter schema, kanban view, optional rows). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'add_database_column' or 'create_doc', leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, if an agent needs a custom database schema, using 'add_database_column' repeatedly might be more appropriate. The description lacks any when-not or alternative context.

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