Provision application resources

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false (safe), idempotentHint=true (repeatable), and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds value by specifying exactly what side effects occur: creating a database, role, password, and writing to .env. It also highlights the plan dependency. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides contextual behavior beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical prerequisite is placed at the end. Every clause adds information, making it highly efficient.

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 operation's complexity (creating DB, role, password, writing env) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main actions and the key prerequisite. It doesn't mention return values, but the output schema handles that. It also doesn't discuss potential edge cases (e.g., existing resources), but the idempotentHint annotation mitigates that. Overall it's reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives a hint that 'name' refers to a registered application's name and that 'plan_id' is tied to a matching plan, but it does not explicitly explain the meaning of each parameter or any constraints. The description partially clarifies the parameters but leaves room for ambiguity about the exact format and relationship between name and plan_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly enumerates the resource being created: a PostgreSQL database and role, plus a password generation and settings write to .env. It also names the prerequisite plan, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_app and plan_app_resources, so an agent can identify its exact scope.

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?

It explicitly states a required precondition: 'Requires a matching plan from plan_app_resources.' This tells the agent when it's appropriate to call this tool (after planning) and implies it should not be used before a plan exists. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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