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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it declares idempotency ('every statement is idempotent, so a clean re-run is harmless'), the breadcrumb side effect, the per-concern return shape with inline error text, and the operator-only nsec-signed auth requirement. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a privileged mutation tool.

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-loads the action ('Prepare this operator's database schema again'), then layers diagnosis, safety, return shape and auth. Each sentence adds information, though 'ignoring the breadcrumb' is slightly cryptic and could be clarified without loss.

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, so return values needn't be spelled out (and the description still summarizes them). Usage, safety profile, auth restriction and side effects are all covered, which is enough for an agent to call this privileged recovery tool correctly. The only real gap is the undocumented 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?

There is one parameter (dpop_token) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions that proof is nsec-signed, which relates loosely to the token, but it never explains what dpop_token is, its format, or that it may be empty by default. Partial compensation only.

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+resource: re-prepare the operator's database schema, and explicitly frames it as a diagnostic/recovery tool. No sibling tool performs schema restoration, so differentiation is implicit rather than named. Terms like 'the breadcrumb' are jargon-y but the core purpose 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 triggering condition: when Neon keeps answering 4xx and a table or grant is suspected missing. It also reassures that a clean re-run is harmless, which shapes when it is safe to invoke. It does not name an alternative tool to try first, which keeps it short of a 5.

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