DB 준비·적재 확인

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive): discloses container lifecycle, that existing files are never overwritten (rejects on differing content), charset/collation handling, and verification steps (table count, required rows, Korean round-trip). The container deletion is the tool's own scratch resource, not an annotation contradiction with destructiveHint=false, but that nuance is left implicit.

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 purpose and source-selection priority, then detail. It is dense and long, with some very low-level charset internals that exceed selection needs, but nearly every clause carries actionable invocation information rather than filler.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers source selection, transformation logic, outputs, container behavior, safety constraints, and exclusions—everything an agent needs to invoke correctly. Return values are covered by the output schema, so no gap remains.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the prose meaningfully contextualizes several key params—run, keep, dryRun, scripts, offline, includeComments, database—their interaction and defaults. It does not add much for timeoutMs, imageRegistry, or format, relying on the schema there.

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 (prepare DB scripts) and resource (DB schema/data scripts for common components/project), and clearly distinguishes it as a DB-preparation tool rather than project scaffolding or migration. An agent can tell what it does 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?

Explains invocation modes explicitly: default dryRun writes nothing, run=true spins Docker and verifies then tears down, keep=true retains the container, and 'scripts' overrides automatic source selection. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('운영 DB 적재·스키마 이관은 하지 않습니다'), routing production-DB work elsewhere.

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