pg_alter_role_password

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits: whether the change is immediately effective, if it terminates existing sessions, or any security implications (e.g., locking out users). The description does not go beyond stating the basic operation.

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, which is concise but lacks any structural elements like paragraphs or lists. It is front-loaded with the key verb, but the brevity sacrifices informativeness.

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 simplicity of the tool (two params, no output schema), the description still falls short by not mentioning return behavior, error cases, or context about how password changes affect role access. It is not fully informative for an 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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional meaning for the 'role' and 'password' parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value over the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Change') and the resource ('PostgreSQL role password'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pg_alter_role_attributes which handle other role attributes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pg_alter_role_attributes). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as required permissions or connection state, which are critical for an agent to operate correctly.

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