comment_on_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the operation replaces any existing comment, and it requires table ownership, with the exact failure mode (ORA-01031) spelled out. It omits return/response behavior and required privileges beyond ownership, but the safety-relevant constraints are well covered.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the action, the second gives the constraint and failure mode. No redundant restatement of the name or schema, and every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs: what it does, who can run it, and the error on failure. Return value is unspecified, but that is a minor gap given the operation's simplicity.

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 100%, so all three parameters (table, schema, comment) are already documented, including the schema-defaulting and quote-escaping behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 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 ('add or replace') and resource ('comment on a table'), which clearly differentiates from the sibling comment_on_column without needing to name it. The 'add or replace' phrasing also communicates the upsert nature of the operation. It lacks explicit sibling routing but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — only tables the MCP user owns — and explains why (no system privilege exists for COMMENT on others' objects) plus the resulting error (ORA-01031). This is a clear 'when this works' constraint, though it does not route the agent between this tool and comment_on_column.

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