ecp_oneclick_create_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: if user creation fails, database creation is still attempted, and it tells the agent how to verify the outcome. This is valuable non-obvious behavior. It doesn't mention idempotency or side effects beyond that, but the partial-failure disclosure is significant.

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, front-loaded with the core action and context, followed by a critical failure-handling note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, the use case, and the partial-failure behavior. It doesn't describe the return value or success/failure indicators, but the verification hint partially compensates. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly 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 names the three parameters implicitly (db_name, db_user, db_pass) through the phrase 'MySQL user + database', but doesn't add details like naming constraints, password requirements, or defaults. The description adds some context but leaves the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('MySQL user + database in one step'), and explicitly scopes it to 'one-click app install'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecp_mysql_create_database and ecp_mysql_create_db_user, which are separate operations.

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 clearly states the intended context ('for use during a one-click app install') and provides a fallback verification step if user creation fails. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among the many MySQL siblings.

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