Alias cũ của cloud_db_create

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld behavior. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema annotations: sandbox=true is a free trial requiring no wallet. It stops short of covering creation side effects, auth, or provisioning time.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the alias/routing information is front-loaded ahead of the sandbox note. Efficient for what little it chooses to say, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and 14% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without engine/CPU/RAM/disk/package semantics or any description of what is created. The alias routing and sandbox note are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 14% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only sandbox (and that text is duplicated from the schema), leaving app_name, engine, cpu, ram_gb, disk_gb, and package_slug entirely undocumented. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 tool is a compatibility alias and directs callers to cloud_db_create, which differentiates it from its sibling. However, it never says what the operation actually does (create a database), so the purpose is only inferable from the name and the referenced sibling. Vague on the core verb+resource.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use cloud_db_create for new integrations, implying this alias exists only for legacy compatibility. That is a clear when-to-use signal, though it does not spell out deprecation, removal timing, or any when-not conditions.

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