create_migration_scripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it generates scripts, but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies the database, whether it writes files or returns text, or whether it requires elevated permissions. The phrase 'generate migration scripts' implies a safe code-generation operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 tool has a complex input schema with nested objects for column, index, and constraint changes, and no output schema is provided. The one-sentence description does not explain how to structure 'changes', what constitutes valid input, or what the generated scripts look like (e.g., file paths, return format). This is a significant gap for a tool with such detailed schema, leaving an agent uncertain about invocation details.

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 provides detailed descriptions for both parameters ('schema' and 'changes'), with 100% coverage. The description does not add any information about parameters, but since the schema already covers them thoroughly, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'up/down migrations' gives a hint about expected change types, but it does not elaborate on parameter structure or syntax.

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's purpose: 'Generate migration scripts for schema changes with up/down migrations'. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('migration scripts'), and the qualifier 'with up/down migrations' adds useful scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_schema_documentation or generate_api_documentation, which produce different outputs.

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 when to use the tool: when you have schema changes and need migration scripts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide conditions like prerequisites (e.g., needing a database connection or valid 'changes' structure). There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to other tools such as compare_schemas or analyze_schema_change_impact.

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