cloud_create_database_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission structure, wildcard usage, and the option for a no-access token, which adds value. However, it does not mention security implications, that the token may be shown only once, or what happens on invalid input. The description adequately explains the core behavior but omits some operational consequences.

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 well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, then explains the permissions format, and lists examples. It is slightly longer than ideal but every sentence contributes necessary information, especially the examples. It is concise for the complexity involved.

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 has two parameters with full schema descriptions, and the description adds detailed permission examples, making it sufficiently complete for invocation. It lacks any mention of the response format (e.g., what the API returns), but since there is no output schema, that is a gap. Overall, for a creation tool with well-documented inputs, it is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by providing a detailed permission format, examples for no-access, read-only, mixed, and full-access tokens, and clarifying the wildcard '*' behavior. This enriches the parameters with practical usage semantics that the schema alone does not convey.

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 purpose: 'Create a new database token for InfluxDB Cloud-Dedicated/Clustered cluster.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('database token'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_delete_database_token and create_admin_token by focusing on database tokens with per-database permissions.

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 explains the context (Cloud-Dedicated/Clustered) and provides concrete examples of how to use permissions. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, the permission format and examples make its intended use clear. It implies this is the tool for creating database-scoped tokens, contrasting with admin or resource tokens.

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