ecp_mssql_change_database_owner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is a mutation ('Change') but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or what happens if the database or user does not exist. The only behavioral detail is the account membership constraint, which is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous words, but it lacks structure such as prerequisite lists or usage scenarios. It is under-specified, which reduces its value despite its brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not mention expected input validation, consequences of changing ownership, or any related steps. The account-membership constraint is useful but leaves many gaps an agent would need to resolve via trial or other tools.

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 implies that db_name refers to the database and db_username to the user, but it does not clarify formats, whether the username is an owner or target, or any relationships. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 clear verb ('Change') and a specific resource ('a database's owning user'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling ecp_postgres_change_database_owner, relying on the tool name to signal the database engine. This is still strong enough to be considered clear.

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 mentions a precondition ('both must already belong to this account') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the Postgres equivalent, nor does it suggest related tools like listing users or privileges. There is no guidance on when this operation is appropriate or what to check beforehand.

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