Initialize a new database in the Rockfish AI platform to store and manage datasets for synthetic data generation and ML workflows.
Create a new database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Database name | |
| description | No | Database description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the implied write. It does not state permission/auth requirements, whether names must be unique, what happens on a duplicate name, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The problem is under-specification rather than bloat, and the little content present is well structured.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover naming constraints and side effects. It leaves the agent without enough context to call the tool confidently in an ambiguous sibling set.
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 both parameters ('name' and 'description') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, uniqueness, or length constraints beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Create a new database' vs create_database) with no added scope, constraints, or distinguishing detail. It conveys the verb and resource but is effectively a tautology, and it does nothing to separate itself from siblings like create_dataset, create_project, or create_workflow.
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 prerequisite information, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool. An agent gets no help deciding between create_database and the many other create_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.