infomaniak_create_database

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

The description discloses critical behaviors: the two-phase commit process and the decision to use a private API because the public API silently no-ops. This adds context beyond what annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) provide, helping the agent anticipate side effects and API 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?

The description is one dense sentence that packs purpose, behavior, and rationale. It is front-loaded but could be more readable with a slight structural split. Still, it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (two-phase commit, private API workaround), the description covers essential context: what it creates, how it operates, and why the alternative API path was chosen. With an output schema present, the agent has enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema. However, the schema itself provides adequate details, including hosting_id source and naming constraints.

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 ('Create'), resource ('a new MariaDB database on a web hosting'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete or get by mentioning the two-phase commit and reliance on a private API. This specificity ensures the agent understands exactly what the tool does.

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 the tool (for creation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The input schema for hosting_id hints at prerequisite tools (infomaniak_find_site, infomaniak_list_hostings), but this is not in the main description, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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