db_migrate_schema

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait ('double approval required') which is valuable given no annotations. However, it omits other important behavioral aspects such as irreversibility, potential locking, or data loss risks. With annotations absent, more disclosure could be expected for a destructive operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: it states what the tool does, the type of SQL, and the approval requirement. It could mention the irreversible/destructive nature of DDL, but the low complexity leaves only a minor gap.

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 fully describes the single 'query' parameter (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds little beyond restating the allowed DDL operations, which is also present in the schema description. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as executing schema migrations (ALTER/CREATE/DROP), specifying the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'schema migration'. It distinguishes itself from db_execute_query by emphasizing 'structural change', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 structural DDL changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_execute_query. The 'structural change' qualifier offers some guidance, but there is no explicit when-not or mention of alternative tools.

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