pg_grant_role

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

The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling (e.g., what happens if the role or member does not exist), or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description fails to fill the 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 a single sentence with no superfluous words, which is concise. However, it is too minimal, sacrificing useful information for brevity. It earns a middle score for being efficient but under-informed.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the result, error conditions, or any behavioral details, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the parameters. The meaning of 'role' and 'member' is implied but not clarified, and 'adminOption' is entirely undocumented beyond its type. The description adds no value over 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 verb 'Grant' and the resource 'a PostgreSQL role to another role,' which precisely defines the action and distinguishes it from siblings like 'pg_revoke_role' and 'pg_grant_privileges.'

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 such as 'pg_grant_privileges' or 'pg_create_role.' There is no mention of prerequisites, like the role needing to exist, nor any context about when to use 'adminOption.'

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