pg_manage_schema

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 doesn't clarify critical traits: whether operations are read-only or destructive (e.g., create_table alters database state), authentication needs (connectionString is optional but implications unclear), error handling, or transaction behavior. The examples add some context but leave major gaps for a multi-operation tool with potential mutations.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: a purpose statement followed by operation examples. Each example earns its place by illustrating parameter usage. However, the examples are somewhat terse and could be more clearly formatted, slightly reducing readability.

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 complexity (9 parameters, multiple operations including mutations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., database permissions). For a schema management tool with potential destructive operations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions operation examples and ties some parameters to operations (e.g., tableName for create_table), but doesn't explain semantics like column structure details or ifNotExists behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 manages PostgreSQL schema with specific operations (get schema info, create/alter tables, manage enums). It distinguishes from siblings like pg_execute_query or pg_manage_indexes by focusing on schema operations rather than queries, indexes, or other database aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like pg_manage_constraints or pg_manage_functions.

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 examples that imply when to use different operations (e.g., operation='get_info' for table lists), giving some contextual guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice or clear alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use pg_manage_constraints instead for constraint operations). The examples serve as usage hints but aren't comprehensive guidelines.

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