create_state_database

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it creates a database from SQL schema, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like permission needs, side effects, or whether existing databases are overwritten. With annotations present, the description provides modest added context.

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 consists of two sentences, both front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds useful context without excess verbiage. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, annotations present), the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It mentions SQL schema but does not specify prerequisites or behavior if the database already exists. The 'FP-compliant replacement' aids context, but some completeness gaps remain.

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% with a single parameter fully described. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'source_directory'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a per-project state database from an SQL schema, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by mentioning 'FP-compliant replacement for mutable global variables', setting it apart from sibling tools like 'update_project_state' or 'query_project_state'.

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 implies usage context (FP-compliant state management) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or direct comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the 'FP-compliant replacement' hint.

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