create_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the tool automatically resolves DB names and secret-like fields, including random password generation, before sending a deploy request. This is useful, but it doesn't mention permissions, async behavior, reversibility, or error conditions, so it remains only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, clearly stating what the tool does and a key behavioral nuance.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool with 11 parameters. It does not explain how the template_id and app_name relate, what optional fields do, or how this tool connects to other database-related tools (e.g., list_database_templates). The overall context is underspecified for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely refers to 'DB names and secret-like template fields' but does not map these to any of the 11 parameters. It fails to explain the meaning of template_id, app_name, cpu_limit, storage_gb, etc., leaving the agent without crucial parameter guidance.

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 ('Provision a database') and the resource ('from a ready marketplace template'), distinguishing it from generic deployment tools. It also highlights unique behavior (resolving DB names and generating random passwords) that separates it from siblings like deploy_marketplace_template.

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 when to use the tool: when provisioning a database from an existing marketplace template. It also hints at prerequisites ('ready marketplace template') and what the tool handles internally. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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