provision_postgres_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses two possible return states (credentials or payment), but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond provisioning.

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 with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the key purpose, and the second sentence adds critical conditional behavior. Perfectly concise.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for a basic provisioning tool but lacks failure modes, return structure details, and prerequisite context (e.g., authentication).

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?

All 3 parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains them. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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 verb 'Provision' and resource 'new Postgres database', with specific outcome details (credentials/payment). It distinguishes from siblings like 'init' or 'run_sql' by being database-specific.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned. The payment scenario implies a conditional usage path, but no guidance on when to choose this over other provisioning or project tools.

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