provision_postgres_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the possibility of requiring x402 payment, which is helpful, but omits details on auth requirements, idempotency, resource creation side effects, or error scenarios. The description gives a basic outline but lacks depth.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence quickly conveys the core action, and the second adds outcome details. No filler words, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by stating the return types. However, it lacks explanation of optional parameters like org_id's effect (cold-start path) or name auto-generation. The tool is simple, but completeness is average.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The main description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or default behaviors. It sticks to the return values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Provision' and the resource 'Postgres database', and distinguishes from sibling tools like provision_contract_wallet by specifying the database type. The outcome is also mentioned: returns credentials or payment details.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_tier or create_org. The description implies usage for provisioning a new database but does not compare to other provisioning or creation tools. The mention of payment need is context but not usage guidance.

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