audit_add_triggers

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not meet it. It doesn't state whether adding triggers executes DDL directly, writes migration files, replaces existing triggers, or is reversible. For a mutation tool affecting database state, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy. It slightly under-delivers on content, but as far as conciseness and structure go, it is appropriately sized.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool — four parameters including an ORM enum and an approach enum, with no output schema and no annotations. The one-line description does not cover return behavior, what changes are made to the target database, or which combinations of orm and approach are valid together. An agent has too much left to infer.

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 100%, so all four parameters (orm, tables, api_key, approach) are already documented by the schema. The description's mention of 'database triggers or ORM middleware' loosely echoes the approach enum but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Add'), a concrete resource ('automatic audit logging'), and the two mechanisms involved ('database triggers or ORM middleware'). This is clear and actionable, and it aligns with sibling tools in the audit_* family without being a tautology. It loses one point because it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from audit_generate_schema or audit_query_builder, which an agent might confuse it with.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like audit_generate_schema (schema creation) and audit_query_builder (querying audit data) exist, but the description never explains what makes this tool the right choice among them, nor does it state prerequisites such as the tables already existing or migrations being required.

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