db_fork_database

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the action and return type, without disclosing side effects such as data copying semantics, asynchronous behavior, cost implications, or prerequisites. It does not warn that this creates a new resource that may incur charges, nor does it clarify whether the source is left untouched. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args list and a Returns line. Each parameter gets a single concise line, and there is no fluff. The structure front-loads the main purpose and is easy to scan.

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 5-parameter database operation, the description lacks essential context such as whether the source must exist, whether the copy is immediate or asynchronous, any region/plan availability constraints, or whether the operation is reversible. It mentions the return value but does not describe the output schema (though that exists separately). The description is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke this tool without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation for each of the five parameters (database_id, label, region, plan, vpc_id), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema types. However, it lacks format hints or examples, and does not clarify how to obtain valid values for region or plan. It covers all parameters adequately but not exhaustively.

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 verb 'Fork' and the resource 'database to create a copy', which distinguishes it from simple creation or deletion. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like db_create_read_replica, but the purpose is unambiguous. It avoids tautology and gives a specific action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as db_create or db_create_read_replica. The description does not mention when a fork is appropriate or when to prefer other database creation methods. This leaves the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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