pg_switch_database

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool modifies the active profile and affects subsequent queries, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., does it validate the profile, require an existing connection, or return a confirmation?)

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the core action and adds only essential information about persistence to subsequent queries. No unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., success/error, confirmation) or that it operates as a side-effect. The current description is adequate for a state-changing tool but could be more complete by noting return behavior.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'target' and 'profile'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond summarizing the action; it does not explain the relationship between the parameters or provide additional context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Switch the active connection profile.' It uses a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('active connection profile'), and among the sibling tools, it uniquely identifies this function.

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 description implies usage context ('All subsequent queries will use this profile unless overridden') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like pg_connect or pg_connection_status, and does not mention conditions where it should not be used.

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