Schemas Create Schema

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotency/open-world profile, so the description only needs to add context — but it adds none. Notably it never explains that if_not_exists defaults to true, meaning the call silently no-ops on an existing schema, which is a behavior an agent must know before invoking a creation tool.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste — but it is minimal rather than efficient, carrying no information that the name and title don't already convey.

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 mutating creation tool with 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, and an undocumented existence-check default, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the behavioral and parameter 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 only 50%: 'comment' and 'if_not_exists' are undocumented in both schema and description. The description's 'inside a specified database' weakly maps to the database param but gives no naming/quoting rules, no default for if_not_exists, and no mention of the comment field, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new schema') plus scope ('inside a specified database'), which distinguishes it from schemas_drop_schema, schemas_clone_schema, and databases_create_database. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating a differentiator explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., required privileges on the parent database), and no pointer to alternatives such as schemas_clone_schema when copying an existing schema. Only an implied 'call this to create' reading is available.

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