ncloud_serverless_create_database

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful behavioral context: the API returns a 202 Operation (asynchronous acceptance) and reserved schema names are rejected. However, it does not disclose what a 202 means for follow-up (e.g., polling an operation status) or any side effects beyond creation. With the annotation covering destructiveness, the description adds some but not rich behavioral detail.

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 concise: two sentences clearly stating the action, endpoint, response code, and a key constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and endpoint. The only minor inefficiency is that the endpoint details could be considered redundant with the tool's purpose, but they add precision.

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 simple two-parameter create operation with a full schema and a non-destructive annotation, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks guidance on post-creation behavior (e.g., polling the 202 operation), what 'reserved schema names' specifically are, or any prerequisites like cluster existence. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete, but the simplicity of the tool and schema limits the severity.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (name and clusterName) with patterns and descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond schema, except the implicit constraint that 'name' may be subject to reserved schema name rejection. Per the calibration baseline, 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a database') and the resource (MySQL cluster database), along with the specific HTTP endpoint. It is distinct from siblings like ncloud_serverless_list_databases and ncloud_serverless_delete_database based on the verb and resource. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from ncloud_serverless_batch_create_databases, leaving slight ambiguity about when to use single vs. batch creation.

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 usage by naming the API endpoint and noting that reserved schema names are rejected, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_serverless_batch_create_databases or ncloud_datacatalog_create_database. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and siblings.

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