mssql_manage_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that remove is destructive/deletes extended properties, whether set overwrites existing comments, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The description mostly restates the operation names rather than revealing side effects or runtime behavior.

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 a single focused sentence followed by compact examples. It front-loads the core purpose and operation set, and the examples are informative rather than 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?

The description gives enough examples to make basic calls correctly, and the schema covers parameter details. However, with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, it omits return-value behavior, error cases, permission prerequisites, and the destructive impact of remove, leaving an agent under-informed for edge cases.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds useful examples that clarify parameter relationships, such as using operation='set' with comment text and operation='bulk_get' for discovery. It does not explain all conditional dependencies like tableName for index/constraint/trigger, but the schema already handles those.

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 manages SQL Server object descriptions via MS_Description extended properties, with explicit get, set, remove, and bulk_get operations. Examples with operation/objectType/objectName make the tool's scope concrete and help distinguish it from sibling tools that manage indexes, constraints, triggers, or functions.

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 operation examples that imply when the tool is useful, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like mssql_execute_query, mssql_execute_mutation, or other mssql_manage_* tools. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of when not to use it.

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