provision_postgres_project

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

Discloses return behavior (credentials on success, payment details if x402 needed), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on destructive nature, authorization requirements, or idempotency, and annotations are absent.

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 short and to the point, but could be slightly expanded to include key contextual details without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (optional parameters, tier options, payment requirement), the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not mention the tier choices or org_id implications, nor does it have an output schema to supplement.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter info beyond the schema. No per-parameter elaboration is provided.

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 action ('Provision') and the resource ('a new Postgres database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'provision_signer' or project management 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to provision a signer or use a different project creation flow. The mention of 'cold-start path' is only in the schema, not in the description.

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