infomaniak_create_database

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: two-phase commit (requires a plan+apply flow) and the fact that going through the private API is required because the public API silently fails. This goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides unique, non-redundant information. The warning about the public API is concise and highly useful.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the critical non-obvious aspects (two-phase commit, private API) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The schema covers parameter 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 schema documents all parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), including the confirmation_token's role in the apply phase and the naming rules. The description mentions two-phase commit but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Create a new MariaDB database on a web hosting' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the two-phase commit behavior and the private API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_databases or delete_database.

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 implies when to use this tool by stating it creates a database and warns that the public API silently no-ops, making this private-API tool necessary. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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