databases_create_datetime_attribute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The ISO 8601 standard mention is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and key constraint, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context such as what the tool returns, error handling, permissions needed, or how it interacts with other tools (e.g., that 'collection_id' must reference an existing collection created via another tool). The ISO 8601 mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the ISO 8601 standard, which relates to the 'default' parameter format but doesn't provide additional semantic context for parameters like 'database_id' or 'collection_id'. 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('date time attribute') with the specific constraint 'according to the ISO 8601 standard.' It distinguishes this from other attribute creation tools (like boolean, email, etc.) by specifying the attribute type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'databases_update_datetime_attribute' or other datetime-related tools.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing database and collection), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'databases_update_datetime_attribute' or other attribute creation tools in the sibling list.

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