Guided Schema Evolution

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no operational detail beyond the marketing-style summary: it does not say whether 'start' creates any state, what the response contains, or what happens when all four nullable parameters are omitted. The word 'start' also sits in mild tension with a read-only, idempotent contract, which the description does nothing to resolve.

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 compact sentences with the workflow identity front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is appropriate in form, though the second sentence spends words on general benefit rather than on information an agent needs.

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?

Placeholder.

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% across four parameters (subject, strategy, current_schema, proposed_schema), so the description is the only source of meaning and it supplies almost none. At best, 'analyzing changes' and 'suggesting strategies' loosely gesture at current_schema/proposed_schema and strategy, but no format, expected values, or precedence is given, and subject is never mentioned.

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?

Names a specific action (start the Schema Evolution Assistant workflow) and the resource it operates on, and describes the workflow's purpose (analyze changes, suggest strategies, coordinate consumer updates). It is distinguishable from siblings like register_schema or check_compatibility, though the word 'start' leaves ambiguous whether this returns guidance text or opens a session.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, even though check_compatibility and register_schema cover adjacent territory. The phrase 'helps you safely evolve schemas' only implies a context; an agent must guess whether this is the entry point before a schema change or a replacement for other tools.

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