create_database_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create' with no mention of side effects, requirements (e.g., cPanel prefix from the schema), error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is insufficient for a mutation operation, leaving the agent unaware of potential failures or prerequisites.

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 a single, concise sentence with zero waste. It conveys the core action in six words, matching the simplicity of the tool. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

Despite the low parameter count, the description lacks critical context. There is no guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools, no behavior details, and no output description. With no annotations or output schema, the description alone is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and integration into workflows.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (name and password), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's note about 'cPanel account prefix' is the only meaningful semantic detail, but it comes from the schema, not the description.

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 tool's function: 'Create a new MySQL database user.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('MySQL database user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_database (creates databases) and grant_database_privileges (grants privileges). This leaves no ambiguity about 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is a prerequisite for granting privileges, or that it should be used when setting up a new database user. Without exclusions or context, the agent must infer usage 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.