pg_manage_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core operations (get, set, remove, bulk_get) and provides examples, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (connection string handling), error conditions, or whether operations are transactional/reversible. The examples help but don't fully compensate for the lack of annotation coverage.

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 sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another providing concrete examples. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses the examples efficiently to illustrate usage without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and provides examples, it doesn't address important contextual aspects like return values (especially critical with no output schema), error handling, or the relationship between parameters (e.g., which parameters are required for which operations beyond the schema's 'required' field).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'operation' examples and 'objectType' examples but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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 with specific verbs ('get, set, remove') and resources ('PostgreSQL object comments'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing exclusively on comment management rather than broader database operations like query execution, user management, or constraint handling.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (managing comments on various database objects) and includes examples that illustrate different operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for overlapping functionality.

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