combell_mysql_databases_create

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

Annotations only say the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the database name is prefixed, the operation runs in the background, and the result is a provisioning job to poll. This gives the agent needed execution expectations without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds necessary information: what is created, how the name is changed, and how the async result is delivered.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent to expect a provisioning job to poll and to use the returned resource link. It could be more complete by naming the provisioning job lookup tool or describing the job field, but for a create action with three well-documented parameters, it is largely sufficient.

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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description mostly repeats the prefixing behavior already present in the database_name schema descriptionahanhasil. It does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a MySQL database on an account and set up a first read/write user. It distinguishes this tool from mysql users tools and mysql database list/get/delete tools by specifying the creation and provisioning behavior.

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 gives clear operational context such as async execution and polling, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like combell_mysql_users_create or combell_mysql_databases_get. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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