panelica_domains_post_v1_domains_id_databases

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

Annotations already indicate this is mutating and non-idempotent; the description reinforces that with 'Mutating: changes server state' and adds the required 'domains:write' scope. It does not disclose side effects, response behavior, or constraints like the domain needing to exist, but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by short endpoint, category, scope, and mutation notes. It contains minor boilerplate that overlaps with annotations, but no meaningful bloat.

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 mutating operation with an open-ended body schema and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It gives no indication of required body fields, database naming rules, example payloads, or response details, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid request without external documentation.

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 the baseline is 3. The 'id' parameter is documented as a path parameter, but the 'body' parameter is essentially unspecified beyond 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs'. The description adds no field-level meaning, so an agent still cannot determine what the request body should contain.

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 clear verb ('Create'), resource ('database'), and scope ('for domain'), and includes the HTTP endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like the global database creation endpoint, but the domain-scoped phrasing makes the target resource reasonably unambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as panelica_databases_post_v1_databases or panelica_domains_delete_v1_domains_id_databases. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions stated; the intended usage is only implicit from the phrase 'for domain'.

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