ecp_mssql_create_database_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds one useful behavior beyond the obvious—db_username is automatically prefixed with the account's prefix—but it does not disclose failure behavior, permissions, idempotency, side effects, or response behavior.

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 primary action front-loaded and the important prefix behavior immediately after. There is no filler, repeated schema information, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter tool, this is close to adequate, but the absence of annotations and output schema raises the burden on the description. It does not mention the next logical step of granting privileges or any prerequisites, leaving a moderate contextual gap for an agent navigating the large sibling cluster of MSSQL user/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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameters, and it does partially: it clarifies that db_username should not include the prefix because it is applied automatically. However, it says nothing about password requirements or constraints, leaving the password parameter without meaningful semantic guidance.

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 clear verb ('Create') and resource ('an additional MSSQL user'), and the word 'additional' helps distinguish it from database-creation siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not mention that privileges must be granted separately (e.g., via ecp_mssql_grant_privileges), nor any prerequisites or exclusions, which leaves an agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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