pg_manage_users

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 but offers minimal information. It mentions operations like 'create' and 'drop' which imply mutations, but doesn't clarify critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, whether operations are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., cascade deletions), or error handling. For a complex tool with 20 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, starting with the core purpose and immediately providing concrete examples. The two sentences are efficient with zero waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from examples. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope.

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 (20 parameters, multiple operations including destructive ones like 'drop'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety warnings, permission requirements, or expected return formats. For a multi-operation tool with potential destructive actions, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing example operations ('create', 'grant') and mentioning a few parameters (username, permissions, target, targetType) in examples, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. 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's purpose with specific verbs ('manage', 'create', 'drop', 'alter', 'grant/revoke') and resources ('PostgreSQL users and permissions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pg_execute_query or pg_manage_schema by focusing exclusively on user management operations rather than general queries or schema 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 implied usage through examples ('operation="create" with username="testuser"'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., database connection requirements) or compare with sibling tools like pg_manage_query for permission-related queries, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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