coolify_create_database

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false etc., so the description does not need to restate these. It adds valuable behavioral context by warning that 'Passwords and connection strings are NEVER returned in response,' which is a critical behavioral trait not inferable from annotations. It also mentions the safe-write mode requirement, adding further transparency about operational conditions.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the function, the second provides critical safety/behavioral warnings. It is concise without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the essential context for a create database tool: what it does, the safe-write mode requirement, and the crucial fact that secrets are not returned. Although there is no output schema and the response format is not described, the warning about passwords and connection strings partially compensates by setting expectations. The parameter descriptions in the schema fill in the remaining details.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter already documented (e.g., name, version, server_uuid). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Create a new database in a project environment.' The verb 'Create' and resource 'database' are specific, and the context ('project environment') distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_application or create_service. No ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides clear usage context by stating it creates a database in a project environment and notes a prerequisite: 'Requires safe-write operation mode.' While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when creating a database. The safe-write requirement is important operational guidance.

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