turso_create_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' but does not mention what happens if the database already exists, authentication requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or whether the operation is destructive. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. However, given that the tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema, a slightly longer description (e.g., noting common use cases or response) would be beneficial. It is concise but borderline too sparse.

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 creation tool with 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any behavioral nuances like idempotency. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage (api_key and org are undocumented), the description does not explain any parameter purpose or constraints. It adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing param descriptions. For instance, it does not clarify that `api_key` is for authentication or `org` for organization context.

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 Turso SQLite edge database.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like turso_get_database or turso_list_databases. It is not a tautology and provides immediate understanding of the tool's function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., turso_execute_sql) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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