Create a database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value by disclosing that a database AND a user account are created (a side effect beyond 'create a database'), but it omits auth requirements and what happens on re-run or name collision.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence is spent entirely on one parameter's host semantics, which slightly limits how much ground the short text can cover.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering semantics, the description is adequate but thin: it says nothing about the created user's privileges, return value, or failure modes. The parameter surface itself is fully described by the schema, which keeps this at a viable 3.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description's host guidance duplicates what the schema already says for 'address' ('Access host, same meaning as dataAccess') and 'dataAccess' ('127.0.0.1, a specific ip, or % for any'), adding no new syntax or constraint.

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 resources ('Create a MySQL database and user'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. However, it never references or differentiates itself from siblings like db_set_password, db_set_access, or site_create, which the rubric reserves for a 5.

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 second sentence gives conditional guidance ('Pass 127.0.0.1 unless the app connects from another machine...'), but this is parameter-level advice rather than when-to-use-this-tool-vs-alternatives guidance. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing to a sibling tool, so it stays at implied usage.

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