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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool applies SQL within a transaction and records the migration, indicating it's a write operation with atomicity. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects beyond the transaction.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential details (transactional recording). Every word contributes value with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 versioning) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and transactional behavior but omits details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools like list_migrations.

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 the parameters (name, sql, version). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 the resource ('records it in the supabase_migrations.schema_migrations table'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_sql or list_migrations by specifying the transactional recording aspect.

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 for applying SQL migrations with versioning, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_sql (for general SQL) or list_migrations (for viewing). It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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