Failover Postgres instance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the API endpoint but does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., downtime, data consistency) beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences: the first repeats the name slightly redundantly, but the second efficiently provides context and API detail. Almost succinct, but could merge to avoid repetition.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and annotations, the description provides minimal but sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool. Missing prerequisites (HA instance) and potential outcomes beyond the annotation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description should explain the 'postgresId' parameter (e.g., how to obtain it, its format), but it only names it. No added semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Failover') and the resource ('Postgres instance'), and differentiates from sibling tools like render_restart_postgres or render_recover_postgres by specifying it's for highly available instances and providing the API endpoint.

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 mentions 'highly available Postgres', implying usage context, but does not explicitly excludenon-HA instances or mention alternatives like render_restart_postgres. No clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance.

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