Set database access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description, however, omits key behavioral facts: whether the supplied host list replaces or appends to existing access, whether changes affect live connections, and whether elevated privileges are required. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a simple setter. It is concise rather than padded, though the brevity is what leaves the other dimensions thin.

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 no output schema and only a one-line description, the definition leaves important ground uncovered: no usage routing against db_access_get, no replacement semantics, no permission requirements. The complete input schema helps, but the description alone is not sufficient to call this tool confidently.

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 100%, so the parameters (name, access, dataAccess, ssl) are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema — it doesn't clarify the 'ip' vs 'all' dataAccess semantics or how the comma-separated access list interacts with dataAccess.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and a concrete resource ('which hosts a database user may connect from'), so an agent knows this mutates host-based access. It does not name the sibling db_access_get as the read counterpart, but the verb alone is enough to separate the write from the read.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. privileges needed), and no mention of the read alternative db_access_get for inspecting current access before changing it. The agent has to infer context from the name alone.

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