create_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral fact: the CREATE SEQUENCE privilege requirement and the resulting ORA-01031 error. It omits other important traits such as behavior when the sequence already exists, idempotency, and the return value.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the scope constraint is front-loaded and the privilege/error note follows. Nothing extraneous.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the schema fully documents every parameter and the description adds scope plus the privilege/error requirement. For a simple creation tool this is nearly complete, though it doesn't cover existing-sequence behavior or the success response.

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 all 7 parameters (cache, cycle, order, schema, sequence, startWith, incrementBy) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('sequence') plus a scope qualifier ('in the MCP user's own schema'). This clearly separates it from read siblings like list_sequences, get_sequence_info, and get_next_sequence_value, though it doesn't name any of them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the privilege prerequisite, but the description never states when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it (e.g. if the sequence already exists). The 'own schema' scoping note is a mild usage constraint, but no routing guidance is given.

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