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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses idempotency ('every statement is idempotent, so a clean re-run is harmless'), the side effect of rewriting the breadcrumb, the output shape (one step per concern with Neon's error text inline), and an authentication requirement ('RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof (nsec-signed)'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a recovery operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then recovery context, then the access restriction. Appropriately brief, though the phrase 'ignoring the breadcrumb' is slightly cryptic and assumes the operator knows what the breadcrumb is.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still usefully summarizes the return ('one step per concern, with Neon's own error text inline'), and auth/idempotency are covered. The only real gap is the undocumented dpop_token parameter.

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 single parameter dpop_token has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The 'nsec-signed proof' note hints at auth but does not explain what dpop_token is, its format, or whether it is needed.

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 and resource: re-preparing this operator's database schema. This is clearly distinct from the many sibling tools (e.g. optionality_restore_credits restores credits, not schema), and an agent can identify the action 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: a diagnostic/recovery tool for when Neon keeps answering 4xx and a table or grant is suspected missing. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it, but the triggering condition is concrete enough to route the agent correctly.

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