databases_create_integer_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional min/max values but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a mutating operation (likely yes, given 'create'), what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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—just two sentences that directly state the tool's function and one optional feature. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (8 parameters, creation operation) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error conditions, relationships to other tools, or behavioral expectations. For a tool that modifies database schema, more context about side effects and outcomes is needed.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning min/max values as optional, which is already clear from the schema (where they're not in required array). No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 an integer attribute') and resource ('integer attribute'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'databases_create_float_attribute' or 'databases_create_string_attribute' beyond mentioning 'integer' in the name, which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 (like needing a database and collection), compare it to other attribute creation tools, or indicate when integer attributes are appropriate versus other data types. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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