pg_manage_constraints

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 mentions operations but fails to describe critical behavioral traits: whether operations are read-only or destructive (e.g., 'drop' likely destroys data), permission requirements, transaction handling, error behavior, or rate limits. The description only lists operations without behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potentially destructive actions.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by examples. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the example could be more structured. For a tool with 18 parameters, this brevity is efficient, but it sacrifices completeness for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (18 parameters, multiple operations including destructive ones), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral risks (e.g., data loss from 'drop'), permission needs, error handling, and output format. The examples help but don't compensate for the missing safety and operational guidance required for such a multifaceted tool.

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%, providing a strong baseline. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it mentions 'operation="get" to list constraints' and 'operation="create_fk" with constraintName, tableName, columnNames, referencedTable, referencedColumns,' which slightly clarifies usage but doesn't add meaningful syntax, format, or interaction details that aren't already in the schema's parameter descriptions.

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: 'Manage PostgreSQL constraints - get, create foreign keys, drop foreign keys, create constraints, drop constraints.' This specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('PostgreSQL constraints') with enumeration of specific operations. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on constraints rather than other database objects like indexes, functions, or users, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

The description provides implied usage through examples: 'Examples: operation="get" to list constraints, operation="create_fk" with constraintName, tableName, columnNames, referencedTable, referencedColumns.' This gives basic guidance on when to use certain operations but lacks explicit when/when-not rules, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternative tools like pg_manage_indexes or pg_execute_sql for similar tasks.

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