faucet_insert

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, a thin safety signal. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the record payload shape, that returned rows include auto-generated fields only when the database supports RETURNING, and the POST permission requirement. Error/conflict behavior is still unstated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the payload format, return behavior and permission caveat each earning their place. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers return-value behavior (RETURNING) and the permission prerequisite, and all three parameters are documented by the schema. Missing only failure/conflict semantics, which is tolerable here.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining that each record maps column names to values, clarifying the semantics of the 'records' array beyond the schema's example.

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 (insert), resource (database table) and scope (one or more records), which is unambiguous next to siblings like faucet_update, faucet_delete and faucet_query. It does not, however, explicitly name or route against any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tool's purpose implies its use (add rows to a table), and one prerequisite is stated ('Requires POST permission on the table'). But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over faucet_raw_sql or faucet_update, and no exclusions are given.

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