verify_schema_change

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 disclosing behavioral traits. The description does not mention what happens upon failure (e.g., error messages, warnings), whether the tool modifies any state, or if it requires network access or specific permissions. The behavior is presented too abstractly for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence of 10 words, which is concise. It front-loads the key verbs (runs compiler and schema verification). However, it omits essential details, crossing the line from concise to underspecified. Still, brevity is maintained.

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 zero annotations, no output schema explanation (but an output schema exists), and 3 parameters with no description, the tool description fails to provide enough context. The agent needs to know the output format (what success/failure looks like), the expected data format for parameters, and how this relates to sibling tools. The description is incomplete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions. The tool description does not clarify the parameters either—'repo_path', 'modified_files', and 'schema_changes' are not explained in terms of format or semantics. Since there are no enums, the agent cannot guess valid values. A score of 3 is generous because the schema's structure hints at purpose, but the lack of any explanation makes selection difficult.

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 states the tool runs compiler and schema verification across impacted files, which gives a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'verify_breakage' or 'trace_fullstack_path', which might have overlapping purposes. The purpose is adequate but lacks differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_breakage' or 'get_route_contract'. The description does not indicate prerequisites, such as needing a git diff or pre-identified list of modified files. Without any usage context, an AI agent may misuse or underuse the tool.

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