run_migration

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

The description discloses that the operation runs DDL inside a transaction, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention what happens on failure, whether partial changes can be rolled back, or that DDL is inherently schema-modifying, so some burden falls on the agent despite the transaction note.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, then adds the key transaction qualifier.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is close to adequate. The main gaps are the lack of explicit guidance versus execute and the absence of failure/rollback semantics, which matter for a DDL mutation tool.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully with a clear description, and the tool description adds little beyond the existing schema text. The phrase 'in a transaction' adds execution context, but it does not meaningfully expand the parameter's meaning.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('a database migration'), and clarifies these are DDL statements. It distinguishes the tool from read-oriented siblings like query, list_tables, and describe_table, though it does not explicitly contrast it with execute.

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 implies the tool is for DDL migrations and mentions transactional execution, which gives useful context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over execute or when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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