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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact sequence: new password set and checked, app restarted with the new URL, and only then the old password locked and its connections ended. It also explains the no-confirmation rationale, that data is untouched, and the deploy-in-progress behaviour ('status rotating', old password valid until the deploy finishes).

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 action and its trigger are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (safety, sequencing, data preservation, deploy edge case). It runs long for a single-parameter tool, but nothing is redundant 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?

An output schema exists, and the description nonetheless covers safety, side effects, ordering guarantees, and the concurrent-deploy case. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is already high; the description adds the meaningful constraint that the caller should pass only project_id, confirming additional properties are not accepted.

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 ('Replace a project's managed database password') and scopes it to a single project. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling rotate_storage_key by naming the database password and DATABASE_URL 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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition ('use it at once when DATABASE_URL may have leaked (printed, logged, pasted, or committed)') and an explicit calling constraint ('Pass only project_id'). It stops short of naming when NOT to rotate or pointing to a sibling alternative, which keeps it off a 5.

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