Generate Lakebase credential

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the SECURITY_SENSITIVE+WRITE safety classification, the fact that the token is withheld by default, exactly what connection details are returned, and that reveal_token requires confirm=true and must be treated as a secret. This is rich disclosure that the structured fields do not provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mode routing, default-return behavior, and secret handling. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though the trailing 'Safety classification' tag reads as metadata rather than guidance.

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?

With annotations present, an output schema available, and 100% schema coverage, the remaining burden on the description is the mode selection and the token-reveal safety contract, both of which are covered. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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 100%, so the per-parameter documentation baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by documenting inter-parameter relationships the schema cannot express: kind selects which of instance_names/claims vs endpoint/ttl_seconds apply, and reveal_token is gated on confirm. That added coupling justifies a 4.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (short-lived OAuth credential) with scope (for Lakebase Postgres, as the current identity), which cleanly separates it from siblings like manage_lakebase_database and manage_lakebase_branch. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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 routes the caller between the two operating modes (kind='provisioned' vs kind='autoscaling') and tells which parameters apply to each, which is clear contextual guidance. It does not, however, name any sibling alternative or state when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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