kql_database_create

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a read-only=false, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it is long-running and depends on a parent eventhouse. However, it does not explain what the agent should expect after invocation, such as how to track completion or what the response shape is, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The core action and the long-running behavior are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 create operation with five parameters fully documented in the schema, the description provides the essential missing context: async behavior and the parent eventhouse requirement. It could mention how to check operation status or what is returned, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical, so this is still reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already individually documented. The description adds conceptual meaning by highlighting the parentEventhouseItemId dependency, but it does not need to restate parameter-level details. 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 identifies the action ('Create a new KQL database') and the resource context ('in a workspace'), and adds a key distinguishing detail: it requires a parent eventhouse. This separates it from sibling tools like kql_database_get, kql_database_update, or eventhouse_create without ambiguity.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires a parent eventhouse'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and what must exist first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the prerequisite gives sufficient usage context.

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