ecp_mssql_create_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two key behaviors: the database name gets an account-specific prefix automatically, and the login is created together with the database. However, it does not mention failure modes (e.g., if the DB already exists), permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

Three short, informative sentences with the primary purpose first. No redundant words, and the key distinguishing details (prefix and login creation) are included economically. This is well-structured for an agent to scan.

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 lack of annotations, an output schema, and any parameter descriptions, the description is relatively complete for a create operation but leaves important context unaddressed: the return value on success, error behavior (e.g., duplicate database), and prerequisites (e.g., whether the account has permission to create databases). It covers the core action but not the full operational context an agent might need.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does add meaning by noting that db_name gets a prefix automatically and implying (through 'Creates the login together with the database') that db_username and password are for the login. However, it does not definitively map each parameter to its role (e.g., which is the login name, any constraints on password) or confirm the relationship clearly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a MSSQL database') and adds the important detail that it also creates the login, which distinguishes it from database-only creations and from separate user-management tools like ecp_mssql_create_database_user. The action is unambiguous and clearly scoped to a resource type.

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?

Provides some context by mentioning the automatic prefix and the simultaneous login creation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ecp_mssql_create_database_user) or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparative guidance are given.

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