Create Database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it states org-admin auth is required, that the operation is not idempotent, and prescribes reconciliation via list-databases if the response is ambiguous. It also explains the inheritance semantics of s3Storage, which no structured field conveys.

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?

Bold section headers (Purpose, Returns, Behavior, Safety, Auth, Reliability) front-load the essentials and make scanning easy. It is longer than a one-liner, but each section carries distinct operational information rather than repetition.

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 non-idempotent mutation with a nested optional object and no output schema, the description supplies everything missing: return contents (created database plus organization context), auth requirements, idempotency behavior, verification workflow, and failure recovery. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, cluster, and organization, but the description adds real semantics: s3Storage is optional, omitting it uses the cluster default, tables inherit the configured storage unless they override, and destination paths are optional while buckets/roleArn/externalId are required inside s3Storage. That is genuine value beyond the schema, though the required/optional structure is also visible in the schema itself.

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?

States a precise verb and resource with scope: 'Create a database in a RawTree organization and cluster.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from create-cluster, create-table, and delete-database in the sibling list.

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 Safety section gives explicit preconditions: call list-databases and confirm organization/cluster/name/S3 config with the user, and call verify-database-s3-access with identical config when s3Storage is provided. It also states the invalidation rule (never reuse verification after changing any s3Storage field), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance agents need.

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