ecp_postgres_import_database

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 explicitly says the import 'overwrites' existing content and is 'Irreversible', which is critical for an agent to understand this is a destructive operation. It could mention execution failure behavior or confirmation mechanics, but the core destructive nature is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the destructive warning front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the structure makes the risk immediately clear before any parameter details.

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 destructive, 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key elements: operation, target, input format, and irreversibility. However, it leaves gaps around the confirm field, potential partial-failure behavior, and whether a backup should be taken first, which would make it more complete for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 gives meaning for db_name ('existing Postgres database') and sql_content ('pass the full SQL as text'), but it does not explain the confirm parameter beyond its schema-level const: true. Since confirm is essential for a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import'), a specific resource ('.sql dump'), and a clear target ('existing Postgres database'), with an explicit behavioral qualifier ('overwriting its content'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like create_database, export_database, and restore_from_storage_bd even without naming them.

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?

It clearly states the context: importing into an existing Postgres database and passing the full SQL as text. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as ecp_postgres_restore_from_storage_bd or warn when not to use it, leaving some usage decisions to inference.

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