run_fresh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description clearly states that it drops all tables (destructive action) and delegates to a specific command (`d1-eloquent fresh --force`), providing transparency about the underlying behavior and the force flag.

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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence immediately conveys the core action, and the second provides a technical reference. Every part is essential.

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 has zero parameters, no output schema, and is a simple destructive action, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what happens, how it works (via delegation), and the severity (force flag). One could argue it lacks return value info, but for a destructive reset with no output schema, the current description is adequate.

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 input schema has no parameters (0), and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially satisfied). The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without needing to elaborate on parameters, which is appropriate since no parameters exist.

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 tool drops all tables and re-runs every migration, with a specific verb ('drop' and 're-run') and a clear resource (database tables and migrations). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `run_migrate` or `run_rollback` by indicating a destructive reset, not just a simple migration run.

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 implicitly warns that this is a destructive operation ('drop all tables'), which strongly implies it should be used when a fresh start is needed, not in production. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as suggesting `run_migrate` for incremental updates.

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