Create a database

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not say what happens on a name collision, whether the operation returns credentials, what permissions or panel/API keys are required, or how the inline baseUrl/clientKey/applicationKey overrides interact with persistence beyond what the schema already states.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any useful information.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never explains server identification, panel selection versus inline overrides, or what the caller receives after creation — all things an agent needs before invoking it.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented (panel, remote, baseUrl, database, clientKey, applicationKey). The description adds nothing to explain 'server' (the only undocumented param, likely an identifier) or how required server/database relate. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 verb and resource (create a database) and adds minimal scope ('on the server'), but it essentially restates the tool name db_create and the title 'Create a database'. It does nothing to distinguish this from sibling tools like db_list, db_delete, or db_rotate_password, so the agent gets no differentiating detail.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as db_list for checking existing databases or db_rotate_password for credential management. The agent must infer the tool's role from the name alone.

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