create_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by detailing naming rules and cloud-specific parameter applicability, which are behavioral constraints. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., what happens if the database already exists), or whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps that are typically expected for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and is concise at about four sentences. It efficiently summarizes naming rules and cloud-specific parameters, though some content duplicates the schema descriptions. Overall, it earns its place without being bloated.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains naming constraints and parameter applicability, but it omits the return value, error behavior, and prerequisites (e.g., authentication). Given the lack of structured annotations, these gaps make it only minimally viable.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, including cloud-specific notes. The description's grouping of parameters by cloud type is helpful but largely redundant with the schema descriptions, so it adds only marginal semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 begins with 'Create a new database in InfluxDB', a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_database, delete_database, and list_databases, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 about which parameters apply to Cloud Dedicated/Clustered vs Cloud Serverless, guiding the agent on what to use in different environments. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used instead of alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as checking if a database already exists first.

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