e2e_create_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a mutating provisioning operation but says nothing about permissions required, whether provisioning is synchronous or long-running, cost implications, failure/reversibility behavior, or the shape of the response. For a 7-parameter create tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description never explains how to obtain the required software_id/template_id, what the cluster creation lifecycle looks like, or what is returned. For a creation tool of this complexity, the description is inadequate.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'MySQL, PostgreSQL' essentially restates what software_id's schema description already provides, adding no new meaning.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Provision') with a clear resource ('managed database cluster') and even names example engines. It's easily distinguished from read-side siblings like e2e_list_databases and e2e_get_database, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus e2e_database_action or other create tools, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that software_id and template_id must be sourced from e2e_list_database_plans or the software listing). The agent is left to infer the entire workflow.

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