ecp_postgres_grant_privileges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the surprising scope behavior (all current tables in public schema plus default privileges for future tables) and flags the operation as security-sensitive. It does not mention prerequisites such as existing database/user or whether privileges are additive, but the core side-effect is clearly conveyed.

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?

Three short clauses, each earning its place: the action, the precise scope, and the safety warning. The most decision-relevant scope detail is front-loaded immediately after the verb.

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 is adequate for understanding the core operation but leaves gaps for a security-sensitive mutation: no prerequisites (database/user must exist), no mention of reversibility or whether the grant is additive, and no return/result behavior. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, these gaps are more significant than they would be otherwise.

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 maps 'privileges to a user on a database' to the main parameters and clarifies that the grant applies to all tables in the public schema, giving meaning to db_name. It does not explain confirm in detail beyond the generic security warning, but the schema's const:true and the privilege enum already constrain those parameters.

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 verb ('Grant privileges'), a specific resource ('to a user on a database'), and a non-obvious scope ('Applied per-table (all tables in the public schema) plus default privileges for future tables'). This scope detail clearly differentiates it from generic grant semantics and from sibling revoke/list privilege tools.

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 intended use is clear: grant privileges to a database user. The security-sensitive warning also implies a cautionary when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as ecp_postgres_revoke_privileges or ecp_postgres_list_privileges.

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