db_setup_postgresql_database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the password is auto-generated if not provided and that complete setup information including connection details is returned. However, it does not disclose that this provisions a billable managed database resource, that setup may take time, or what side effects occur beyond creation.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a compact Args list with each parameter on its own line, and a Returns line. There is no redundant or filler text, and key details are easy to scan.

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 7-parameter provisioning tool with no annotations, the description covers the parameters and return value well, and an output schema exists. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain when this composite setup path is preferable to lower-level db_create operations or note provisioning/cost implications, but it is still sufficient for invoking the tool correctly in most cases.

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 explain the parameters, and it does so thoroughly. Every parameter gets a meaningful description, with examples for region and plan, a version range, and explicit auto-generation behavior for app_password.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Quick setup for a PostgreSQL database with application user and database.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_create and db_setup_mysql_database by naming PostgreSQL and the fact that it creates both an application user and database.

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: use this when you want a PostgreSQL database plus application user and database in one setup. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over db_create, db_create_read_replica, or db_setup_mysql_database, nor does it state any exclusions.

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