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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS), return of per-step results, inline surfacing of Neon error messages, and authentication requirement. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about side effects or access controls.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, covering purpose, usage scenario, idempotency, return behavior, and restrictions.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only one parameter (with default), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, when to use, behavioral traits, and return values (per-step results and error handling). No glaring gaps for the intended diagnostic/recovery context.

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?

Only one parameter (dpop_token) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what dpop_token is or how it should be used. While the context hints at authentication, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's basic property type.

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 it re-runs ensure_schema() on every NeonVault the operator uses, specifically as a diagnostic/recovery tool for persistent 4xx errors. The verb "re-run" and resource "NeonVault" are clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like authority_repair_operator_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?

Explicitly specifies when to use this tool: when the Neon HTTP SQL API returns persistent 4xx errors and the operator suspects schema/grants issues. It also notes idempotency, harmlessness, and that it is restricted to operators with nsec-signed proof, providing clear boundaries.

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