pg_execute_mutation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is for data modification operations, implying mutations, but doesn't cover critical behaviors: no mention of permissions required, transaction handling, error behavior, or what happens on failure. The example shows basic usage but lacks depth on constraints, side effects, or safety considerations for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a concrete example. The example efficiently demonstrates key parameters. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the example.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, transaction behavior, or security implications. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context needed for safe database operations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions operation, table, and data in the example but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., when 'where' is required) or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute data modification operations (INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/UPSERT)' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pg_execute_query by focusing on mutations rather than queries, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The example reinforces the purpose but doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the operation types but doesn't explain when to choose insert vs update vs delete vs upsert, nor does it reference sibling tools like pg_execute_query for read operations or pg_manage_* tools for schema changes. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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