timps_db_migration_pilot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates the tool produces a plan, not an executed migration, and enumerates key artifacts. Still, it does not disclose whether the tool inspects schema, connects to live databases, or merely generates a generic plan from the request.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then efficiently lists the plan's major components. Every phrase adds meaningful scope and no filler or redundancy is present.

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 a tool that is explicitly scoped as a planning agent, the description covers the most important context: the zero-downtime constraint and the expected plan components. It stops short of clarifying input/output expectations, but the optional request parameter and lack of an output schema lower the required burden.

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 100% coverage since both 'request' and 'language' have descriptive text. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the optional plain-English request and default language, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') and a clear resource ('a zero-downtime database migration'), then names concrete plan components: expand-contract phases, backfill scripts, dual-write strategy, kill-switches, rollback plan. This clearly distinguishes it from the generic sibling timps_migration_pilot and other DB-related agents.

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 when to use the tool: when the user needs a zero-downtime database migration plan. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as timps_migration_pilot, timps_db_agent, or timps_incident_responder, leaving comparative selection guidance unaddressed.

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