agency-hosting_createWebsiteDatabaseUserV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: the database supports only a single non-system user, and creation fails if one exists. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention prerequisites beyond 'existing database', permissions, idempotency, or other side effects. Given the lack of annotations, the transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 followed by a crucial constraint. There is no redundant information; every word contributes meaning. It is highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool is a straightforward mutation with 5 straightforward parameters, all documented in the schema. The description conveys the essential purpose and a critical failure condition, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. While it lacks explicit notes on permissions or return values (no output schema exists), the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity and the rich schema coverage. It could benefit from noting the need to create the database first, but 'existing database' implies that prerequisite.

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 100%: all five parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters but adds a contextual constraint that each database supports a single non-system user, which clarifies the uniqueness of database_user per database. This minor addition does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, so a 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: 'Creates a user for an existing database on an Agency Plan website.' It specifies the verb (creates), the resource (database user), and the context (existing database, Agency Plan website), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agency-hosting_createWebsiteDatabaseV1 (creates a database) and agency-hosting_deleteWebsiteDatabaseUserV1 (deletes a user).

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 context: it targets Agency Plan websites and requires an existing database. It also warns that creating a user for a database that already has one fails, which is an implicit usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using hosting_changeDatabasePasswordV1 for password changes) or when not to use this tool beyond the failure condition, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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