comment_on_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: this is an upsert ('add or replace') rather than an append, and it is gated on table ownership by the MCP user. That is meaningful. It stops short of saying whether this is DDL, whether existing comments on other columns are affected, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation stated before the caveat. Nothing to trim.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation and the key access constraint, and the schema fully documents each parameter. It is nearly complete; only permissions/DDL-side effects and result reporting are left unstated.

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% and each of the four parameters is described in the schema, including the non-obvious schema/default guidance ('omit rather than guess') and automatic quote escaping. The description's 'add or replace' clarifies the comment parameter's overwrite semantics, but otherwise adds little the schema does not already carry, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and resource: 'Add or replace the comment on a column.' An agent immediately knows the operation and target. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling comment_on_table, so sibling differentiation is left to the name.

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 ownership restriction ('Only works for tables the MCP user owns') gives an implied usage boundary, which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to the obvious alternative (comment_on_table) or to describe_table for reading existing comments.

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