postgresql_change_password

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation operation, yet it says nothing about what gets modified, whether the change is immediately effective, required privileges, or what happens to existing connections. For a password-change operation with five required parameters, this is a critical disclosure 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 short fragment that is front-loaded by necessity, but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. A tool requiring five unexplainable parameters needs far more content to be usable.

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 five required, undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It neither compensates for the schema gaps nor discloses any behavior the agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 all five parameters are required, with cryptic names like 'from', 'type', and 'value' that could plausibly mean anything (e.g., change source, password type, new password value). The description provides no meaning for any parameter, leaving the agent unable to populate the request correctly.

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 names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('password') scoped to PostgreSQL, which distinguishes it from mysql_change_password and redis_change_password via the tool name and the 'PostgreSQL:' prefix. It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no differentiation language in the body text itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like postgresql_change_privileges or postgresql_bind_user, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the target user must exist, the database must be running). The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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