apply_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions transactional execution and recording, which is useful, but lacks critical details like whether this requires admin permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., rollback), if it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a tool that modifies database schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the primary action and includes essential behavioral context (transactional execution and recording). Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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's complexity (applies SQL migrations with transactional safety) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and how but misses important context like error handling, permissions, and return values. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, it should provide more operational guidance.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (version, name, sql). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, formatting constraints, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('applies a SQL migration script') and resource ('records it in the supabase_migrations.schema_migrations table'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'execute_sql' (which doesn't record migrations) and 'list_migrations' (which only lists them). It precisely defines the tool's function with both execution and tracking components.

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 usage context through 'SQL migration script' and 'within a transaction', suggesting it's for database schema changes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'execute_sql' for non-migration SQL or 'list_migrations' for checking status. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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