create_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the created artifact and its return value but says nothing about required permissions, validation/failure behavior for a malformed property schema, or side effects of creating a child database.

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 Args/Returns structure is front-loaded and the property example earns its place by clarifying the trickiest parameter. The Returns line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but overall it is tight and readable.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, and all three parameters are touched on. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the absence of permission requirements and error behavior leaves the agent without the operational context it would need.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains parent_page_id, title, and the non-obvious nested structure of properties with a concrete JSON example ({"Name": {"title": {}}}). This adds meaning the schema cannot convey. It loses a point only for not describing optional property config types beyond the single example.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Create a new database") and adds the scoping constraint "as a child of a page," which differentiates it from create_page and create_database_row. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives explicitly, but an agent can tell what this tool produces.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_page, create_database_row, or query_database. The parent-page constraint is a structural fact, not a when-to-use rule, so the agent is left to infer the scenario entirely.

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