kas_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors like auto-generated database names, required database_login equality, and pick/filter side effects. Yet it omits consequences of delete, update semantics, permissions, and return/error behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary, per-action bullet points, and optional parameter notes. It is front-loaded with the resource type and every line adds operational value without unnecessary filler.

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 moderate complexity of four actions and no annotations or output schema, the description covers action-specific parameters and optional pick/filter well. However, it lacks return format details and permission requirements, making it not fully complete.

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 only provides a generic 'params' object with additionalProperties: true. The description supplies all parameter names and constraints per action, including the auto-generated name for create and the required database_login equality for update/delete. This is essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Manage MySQL databases' and then lists four specific actions (list, create, update, delete) with distinct parameter requirements. This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like kas_dns or kas_mail.

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 action list and explicit parameter constraints (e.g., 'database_login required (same value as database_name)') make it clear when to use each action. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of full guidance.

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