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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the one-hour grace period, the exact condition that ends it (apply_database_password), and that the response contains the new password plus connection strings. This is exactly the mutation-safety context an agent needs and it is consistent with destructiveHint=false since nothing is invalidated immediately.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information — action, grace-period semantics, and return payload — with the core action front-loaded and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return contents (new password and connection strings), and it fully explains the lifecycle interaction with apply_database_password. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or sequence this call is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting the id comes from list_services. The description adds no additional meaning about the id beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Make a new password for a Postgres database') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling apply_database_password, so an agent can tell the two-phase rotation flow apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the operational context: the old password stays valid for an hour, so apps can be migrated before applying. This implies when to call this versus apply_database_password, but it never states an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' rule or any prerequisites/authorization requirements.

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