ecp_mysql_create_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses one important behavior: the db_name gets the account's own prefix applied automatically. This is useful because it tells the agent the final database name will differ from the input. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the database already exists. For a create operation, the mutation is implied, but the prefix behavior is a valuable addition.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The core action is stated first, and the critical prefix behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 create tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and one parameter's key behavior. However, it doesn't explain what db_username does, whether it's optional, or what the return value is. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains db_name semantics (prefix applied automatically) but says nothing about db_username. The description adds meaning for one parameter but leaves the other undocumented. Since there are only 2 parameters and one is explained, this is partial compensation.

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 action ('Create a MySQL database') and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ecp_mssql_create_database and ecp_postgres_create_database by naming MySQL specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies when to use it: when the user wants to create a MySQL database. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ecp_mssql_create_database or ecp_postgres_create_database. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for MySQL database creation, but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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