pg_manage_functions

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. While it mentions the three operations (get, create, drop), it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether create/drop operations are destructive, what permissions are required, whether operations are transactional, or what happens on errors. The examples show basic usage but lack comprehensive behavioral context for a multi-operation 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 sized with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by specific examples. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses examples efficiently to illustrate usage. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the example could be slightly more structured.

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 tool with 13 parameters, three distinct operations (including destructive create/drop), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns for different operations, error handling, transaction behavior, or the implications of create/drop operations. The examples help but don't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for safe use.

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 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning examples like 'parameters="" (empty for no params)', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or operation-specific requirements that aren't already in the schema 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 functions - get, create, or drop functions with a single tool.' It specifies the exact operations (get, create, drop) and the resource (PostgreSQL functions), distinguishing it from siblings like pg_manage_indexes or pg_manage_triggers that handle different database objects.

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 this tool through examples: 'operation="get" to list functions, operation="create" with functionName="test_func"...' It implicitly suggests this is for PostgreSQL function management rather than other database operations, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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