databases_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses billing ('first 30 days are charged from the balance'), the required databases:write scope, and the fact that the plan must be a pg plan with optional standby, but it omits provisioning behavior, response shape, and reversibility/cancellation details.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The billing and scope sentences each add practical value without repetition or 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?

For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost and authorization scope but does not describe what is returned or what happens after ordering. Parameter documentation is fully handled by the schema, leaving the description adequate but incomplete for the mutation context.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds some context about plan kind pg and single-node versus standby, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for allow, region, version, or name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Order a managed PostgreSQL cluster.' It narrows scope to plan kind pg and single-node/standby, and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as databases_list, databases_get, databases_set_allow, and databases_delete.

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 creation context is implied and the description helpfully points to list_plans for the plan id. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with alternatives or states when not to use it, so usage guidance remains inferred rather than explicit.

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