Run migrations (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly names the destructive nature and the safety requirement (confirm), which goes beyond the schema. It could add more about effects or rollback, but the key safety behavior is transparently stated.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a critical safety warning. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The core safety aspects and direction are covered, but the description lacks details on the optional migrationName parameter and what happens after execution. With no output schema and no annotations, the tool needs a bit more context to be fully complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'direction' (up/down) and 'confirm' (required for execution), but the optional 'migrationName' parameter is completely omitted. Partial compensation only.

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 'runs framework migrations (up/down)' via the native runner `php bin/migrate`. This distinguishes it from the sibling scaffolding and validation tools, and the title adds 'DESTRUCTIVE' to reinforce its purpose.

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 provides clear context: it is a destructive operation that requires explicit confirm:true, and nothing executes without that flag. This is strong usage guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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