mirrored_database_create

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the meaningful 'long-running' warning, which is behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations. However, it does not explain whether the call returns immediately, requires polling, or what an agent should do while waiting, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The parenthetical 'long-running' earns its place by adding actionable operational context. This is an ideal structure for an agent-facing tool description.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns, whether it blocks until completion, or how an agent should interpret a long-running operation. The schema fully documents parameters, but an agent still lacks post-invocation context. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 workspaceId, displayName, and description are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema carries the full burden. Baseline of 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 states the exact action ('Create'), the resource ('mirrored database'), and the scope ('in a workspace'), so an agent can tell this from siblings like mirrored_database_update and mirrored_database_start_mirroring. The 'new' qualifier further disambiguates creation from management operations. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to create a brand-new mirrored database inside a workspace. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, does not name alternatives, and does not mention follow-up steps such as starting mirroring or checking status. The usage is inferable but not actively supported.

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