Create Database

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 states only the core creation action but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or potential constraints (e.g., database name rules, hosting account requirements). This is a minimal disclosure, though it is not misleading.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the action and resource. There is zero unnecessary prose, making it maximally concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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 description is terse and does not address the broader context. It lacks any mention of return values (since there is no output schema), prerequisites, or differentiation from the many sibling database tools. Given the presence of agency_db_create and hosting_db_remote_create, more context would be needed to confirm the correct tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (name, password, username) with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 'Create a new database.' clearly states a specific verb (create) and resource (database). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like agency_db_create, which is a similar action in a different context. The hosting prefix in the tool name provides some differentiation, but the description itself does not.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hosting_db_remote_create or agency_db_create. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned. The absence of any such direction leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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