ecp_postgres_revoke_privileges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is applied per-table across the public schema and also affects default privileges for future tables. However, it does not mention the destructive nature, any prerequisites (e.g., user existence), or what happens to existing privileges not listed. It adds some scope context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then immediately specifies the scope. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is insufficient. It does not clarify the role of the confirm parameter, the exact effect of the privileges array, or any safety implications. An agent could not confidently determine how to call it correctly without additional assumptions.

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, but it does not explain any parameters. It only mentions 'user' and 'database' generically, leaving the privileges array and confirm parameter unexplained. The schema enums are helpful, but the description adds no value beyond the raw names.

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 ('Revoke privileges'), the target (a user on a database), and clarifies the scope (per-table across public schema plus default privileges). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecp_postgres_grant_privileges and ecp_postgres_list_privileges.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given. It does not mention that this only applies to the public schema or that there may be other schema-specific methods, nor does it reference sibling tools.

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