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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating but retry-safe operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, but it does not contradict them. It doesn't mention side effects, reversibility, or transaction behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: it tells what it does, on what, and how. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite having useful annotations, the description lacks any usage context, no mention of outcomes or return values, and no output schema. With no output schema to clarify behavior, the agent is left guessing what happens after applying a migration (e.g., whether it returns a status, whether it only moves forward, whether it locks the table). This is incomplete for a destructive operation.

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%, with both parameters (version, tenant_id) having descriptions. The description only echoes the 'by version number' aspect, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 the action clearly with a specific verb ('Apply'), a resource ('database migration'), and a method ('by version number'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scalix_db_query or scalix_db_schema, as none mention applying migrations.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention whether it should be used after creating a branch, whether it's for a specific tenant (though tenant_id is in schema), or when not to use it.

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