pg_set_profile

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: it sets a sticky session profile, loads credentials from environment variables (PG_DEV_*, PG_QA_*), and indicates that later tools reuse the profile automatically. This transparency is sufficient given no annotations are provided.

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 concise and well-structured. It flows logically from the core action to trigger phrases, then explains the persistence and credential source, all in a few sentences without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, how it affects subsequent tools, and the source of credentials. It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and side effects, even without an output schema.

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?

The input schema descriptions for both parameters are thorough: the 'profile' parameter lists allowed values and aliases (development, uat), and the 'verify' parameter explains its effect (runs SELECT 1). With 100% schema coverage, each parameter's meaning is clear.

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 action: setting the sticky session connection profile to dev, qa, or default. It also provides concrete trigger phrases (pgprofile=dev, use Dev DB, etc.) that make the purpose unmistakable, even without referencing sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool ('Call when the user says pgprofile=dev, pgprofile=qa, use Dev DB, switch to QA, etc.') and explains that later tools reuse this profile automatically, establishing it as a prerequisite for subsequent operations. This gives clear context for when to invoke it.

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