create_postgres_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create' and gives parameter configuration details, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the connection is validated, any side effects, required permissions, or idempotency. The config comparison to Snowflake is more about parameters than behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a necessary example and a brief contrast to Snowflake. It is efficient and easy to scan, though the example adds a bit of length.

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?

Given no annotations and a relatively simple creation tool, the description provides useful context for the URL and schema, but lacks other important context like prerequisites, error behavior, or what happens after creation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the overall context is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains connection_url with an example and clarifies that schema is part of the Postgres configuration, but it does not add meaning for name, username, password, or description. Partial compensation only.

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 action ('Create a new Postgres source connection') with a specific resource and differentiates from the Snowflake variant by mentioning config differences. It is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for Postgres sources) and contrasts it with Snowflake ('no account or warehouse'), implying the alternative create_snowflake_source. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use it.

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