databases_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new Database,' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether this is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence ('Create a new Database.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is arguably too concise for a tool with no annotations and complex siblings, potentially under-specifying rather than being efficiently informative.

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 complexity (mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Database' entails in this context, how it relates to other tools, or what to expect after creation. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand the tool's role and behavior fully.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (database_id, name, enabled) thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('a new Database'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'databases_create_collection' or 'databases_create_document', making it vague about what specific type of database entity is being created. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity compared to other tools in the set.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for creating different database components (e.g., attributes, collections, documents), the description offers no context on prerequisites, dependencies, or distinctions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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