ecp_postgres_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 a meaningful behavior: db_name gets the account's own prefix applied automatically, which is a non-obvious side effect. It also states a precondition. However, it doesn't describe what happens if the database already exists, permission requirements, or error cases, though for this simple create operation the disclosure is acceptable.

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 deliver the core purpose, a critical naming behavior, and a prerequisite with a pointer to the relevant sibling tool. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, low-complexity create operation, the description gives the main precondition and an important side effect. Without an output schema, an agent still knows why and when to call the tool. It doesn't describe idempotency or permission requirements, but the description is sufficient for the practical use case.

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?

The input schema provides only names and types with zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining both parameters: db_name is transformed with the account prefix, and db_username must point to an existing user. This adds meaning that the schema completely lacks, even if it doesn't detail length constraints or validation rules.

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 and resource: "Create a Postgres database." It also distinguishes itself from the sibling user-creation tool by naming ecp_postgres_create_database_user in the context of a prerequisite. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately separable from other database 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?

It explicitly states that db_username must already exist and points to the sibling tool ecp_postgres_create_database_user for creating a user first. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies the proper sequence. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the prerequisite covers the main exclusion.

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