local_ydb_generate_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idlempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the return includes references and warnings, and that validation is optional and safe. It reinforces the read-only nature beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (multiple statement types and validation), the description provides a good overview. However, the output format (generated script with references/warnings) is not elaborated, and without an output schema, the agent could benefit from more detail on the return structure.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description does not add parameter-specific insight beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 is a read-only DDL generator for YDB tables, listing specific operations (CREATE, ALTER, DROP, indexes) and distinguishing from the apply tool by explicitly noting it never applies DDL. This differentiates it from sibling tools like local_ydb_apply_schema.

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 generating and optionally validating DDL without applying changes, and mentions validation via local_ydb_apply_schema. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, relying on context from sibling tool names.

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