action_add_postgresql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a connection is added and that ctx.POSTGRESQL becomes available, but it does not disclose whether this is idempotent, whether it replaces an existing PostgreSQL connection, whether it creates persistent configuration, or whether any permissions or prerequisites are needed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the added context of 'Provides ctx.POSTGRESQL' is direct and useful.

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?

The tool is simple with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the basic purpose and effect. However, it omits important context such as whether the connection is persistent, whether existing PostgreSQL connections are replaced, and whether any post-condition behavior beyond providing ctx.POSTGRESQL should be expected.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter 'endpoint' with a precise pattern, required status, and an example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema's thoroughness.

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 ('Add'), a clear resource ('PostgreSQL connection'), and a target ('endpoint's context'), plus the resulting effect ('Provides ctx.POSTGRESQL'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like action_add_milvus, action_add_s3, action_add_redis, and action_add_mongodb.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to add a PostgreSQL connection to an endpoint's context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so the agent must infer the choice based on the tool name and the 'ctx.POSTGRESQL' effect.

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