ecp_mongo_assign_user_to_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is security-sensitive and requires careful review, and it states the limitation that only whole-database readWrite is supported. It also mentions the prerequisite that both resources must exist. However, it does not describe the response format, idempotency, or potential failure modes, which would add further behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured, with two sentences. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the limitation and security warning. There is no redundant wording, and the security-sensitive note is placed at the end as an important caveat.

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?

For a simple grant operation with three parameters, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, limitations, and security caution. It lacks details on what happens on success or if the user already has access, but these are not critical for correctly invoking the tool. The main elements needed to avoid mistakes are present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to db_name and db_username by stating they must already belong to the account, and it implicitly explains the confirm parameter as a confirmation step ('review carefully before confirming'). It does not provide additional format, syntax, or validation details beyond the schema, so the compensation is partial.

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 states a specific action ('Grant a MongoDB user readWrite access to a database') with a clear verb and resource. It also differentiates from MySQL/Postgres by noting that only whole-database grants are supported, which helps an agent distinguish this from other database privilege tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clear context: it states that both user and database must already belong to the account, establishing a prerequisite. It also notes the limitation that only whole-database readWrite is supported (no read-only or per-collection grants), but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those other privilege types, leaving some inference needed. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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