mysql_add_access

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, indicating a non-read, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds no behavioral context: it doesn't state whether existing access is overwritten or appended, whether the DB must already exist, or any rate limits. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description remains very thin.

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 a single short sentence followed by a concise args list. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the args section is somewhat clipped and 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 mutation tool with an output schema present (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter hints. However, it lacks prerequisites (DB existence), interaction with existing access rules, and any permissions required. Given annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide brief semantics for all three parameters: suffix (DB name suffix), access (allowed host/IP/domain/localhost or *), and password (min 6 characters). This is helpful but minimal; it doesn't explain format expectations, wildcard behavior in detail, or how suffix maps to actual DB name.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Открыть доступ к базе MySQL' — open access to a MySQL database) and specifies the scope (from a given host). It is distinguishable from siblings like mysql_add (creates DB), mysql_drop_access (removes access), and mysql_change_password. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it complements or contrasts with.

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?

Usage is implied but not stated: the tool is for granting access to a MySQL DB from a host. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance (e.g., 'use mysql_drop_access to revoke'). The agent must infer the context from the name and sibling set.

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