db_create

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It identifies this as a creation (mutation) operation, but does not mention potential costs, irreversibility, required permissions, or whether the creation is synchronous. It does note engine-specific settings (e.g., 'business+ plans' for Kafka), but that is more parameter constraint than behavioral consequence. An agent would not know the impact of this action beyond 'it creates something.'

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 parameter list that is necessary for 15 parameters, and each line is concise and directly informative. The main action sentence is front-loaded. While long, it is not verbose—every line adds value. The structure is similar to a docstring, which is efficient for such a parameter-heavy 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter syntax well. However, it lacks contextual completeness regarding when to use it, what plans are valid for which engines, region availability, or billing implications. It mentions 'business+ plans' for Kafka features, which is a start, but doesn't guide the agent on high-level decision-making or prerequisites. For a high-impact creation operation, more context would be beneficial.

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 0%, but the description provides extensive parameter semantics. It gives example values for each parameter (e.g., 'ewr', 'lax' for region; 'vultr-dbaas-hobbyist-cc-1-25-1' for plan), explains the meaning (e.g., trusted_ips as CIDR notation), and clearly marks engine-specific constraints (MySQL only, Valkey only, Kafka only). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaning beyond the raw types.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Create a new managed database.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like db_delete and db_create_read_replica by specifying 'new' and 'managed', leaving no ambiguity about its role. The name already signals the primary creation operation, and the description reinforces that.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_create_read_replica or db_fork_database. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situational context. The parameter list hints at engine-specific options, but there is no guidance on choosing this over other creation-related tools.

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