liara_create_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, potential costs, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool.

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 database creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a database ID, connection details), potential side effects, error conditions, or integration with other tools like 'liara_get_database_connection'. The 100% schema coverage helps with inputs but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output context.

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 schema fully documents all 4 parameters (name, type, planID, version) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra context like format examples or dependencies between parameters.

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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_update_database' (modify) and 'liara_list_databases' (read), but doesn't specify what kind of database beyond the generic term, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a plan ID from 'liara_list_plans'), when not to use it (e.g., if a database already exists), or clarify differences from similar tools like 'liara_create_app' or 'liara_create_vm' for infrastructure creation.

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