database_create

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, and the description confirms it as a WRITE operation. It also clarifies the preview/execute workflow. However, it doesn't describe the return value or potential side effects, which is notable since no output schema exists.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second adds crucial workflow info. No wasted words.

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?

Covers the core action and preview/execute workflow. Missing details like linking to a site (site_id) or DB engine distinction, but these are in schema. OpenWorldHint implies possible side effects not addressed.

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 high (78%), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'with a dedicated DB user' but doesn't elaborate on parameters or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action (create), the resource (database), and the types (MySQL or PostgreSQL). It also mentions the creation of a dedicated DB user, which is specific and distinguishes it from listing or dumping tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use dry_run=true for preview and confirm=true to execute, which is a safety guideline. However, it does not contrast with other tools or specify prerequisites like server_id lookup.

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