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

The description discloses the actions (ownership reassignment, DML re-grant), idempotency, and what it does not do (password rotation, DM sending). Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and fulfills it adequately, though it could mention potential failure modes.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, providing context, differentiation, and idempotency guarantee without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (ownership repair in a multi-tenant schema), the description covers the problem it solves, the specific error, idempotency, and differentiation from a similar tool. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is self-contained for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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% so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameters are simply referenced by name in the description; no additional clarification on format or constraints is given. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: reassign table ownership to the operator's role and re-grant DML to fix a specific problem (inability to CREATE INDEX). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool register_operator by explicitly stating what it does NOT do.

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 provides explicit usage context: it should be used when operator schema tables are owned by the provisioning role, leading to the 'must be owner' error. It also contrasts with register_operator, which rotates passwords and sends bootstrap DMs, making it clear when to use each.

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