postgresql_change_privileges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: not whether this is destructive or reversible, whether it requires admin credentials, whether it overwrites existing privileges, or whether it needs a service restart.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single phrase conveys nothing beyond the name, so it does not earn its place.

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 5-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is wholly inadequate; an agent cannot determine the target of the privilege change or the meaning of any argument.

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?

Five required parameters (id, database, from, type, value) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Terms like 'from', 'type', and 'value' are completely opaque without documentation.

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 is essentially the tool name restated ('PostgreSQL: Change privileges'), naming a verb and a resource but not what is being changed (user privileges? database privileges? object grants?) or in what scope. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like postgresql_bind_user or postgresql_change_password beyond the word '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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent has no basis for choosing this over postgresql_change_password or postgresql_bind_user.

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