databases_create_boolean_attribute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a boolean attribute' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's front-loaded and wastes no words. Every word earns its place by stating the core action and resource type without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what errors might occur, or provide any context about the boolean attribute's behavior in the database system. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a boolean attribute' clearly states the action (create) and resource (boolean attribute), but it's vague about the context. It doesn't specify that this creates an attribute within a specific database collection, which is important for distinguishing it from other attribute creation tools like databases_create_string_attribute or databases_create_integer_attribute. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the parent resources.

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. With many sibling tools like databases_create_string_attribute, databases_create_integer_attribute, etc., there's no indication that this is specifically for boolean data types. The input schema mentions collection creation via another tool, but the description itself offers no usage context, prerequisites, or comparisons to other attribute creation methods.

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