format

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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: readOnlyHint=false only says a write is possible, while the description clarifies that the default is a read-only check and that writes are gated behind confirm=true, reducing accidental mutation risk. It stops short of saying whether formatting rewrites files in place, whether it is idempotent, or what the check reports.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the safety-critical default-vs-write rule. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what check mode returns (e.g., a list of non-conforming files) and what happens when paths is omitted. The mutation-safety story is complete, but the read-side result contract is not.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully explains check mode and the confirm gate, but the paths parameter (which defaults to null and presumably means all files) is never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb pair (check or format) and a specific resource (SQLMesh model and audit files), so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It also implicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_model or run_audit, which do not modify file formatting.

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?

Explains the two modes and which one is the default, plus the condition that switches to write mode (confirm=true). It does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, but the mode-selection guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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