audit_generate_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it. It fails to state whether the tool executes DDL against a live database or emits schema files, whether it is destructive or idempotent, or why an api_key is needed. For a tool that touches database infrastructure, this side-effect silence is a significant 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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb first, then resource, then three high-signal deliverables. Every phrase carries information with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters (including a 4-database enum), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns (SQL DDL, migration files, written schema), whether the target database must already exist, and the role of api_key. The single sentence leaves all of that unspecified, making it incomplete given the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds a small tie-in ('change diffs' echoes include_diff, and 'event storage, user tracking' gives context for what tables_to_audit produces), but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Generate audit trail database schema') and lists three concrete deliverables (event storage, user tracking, change diffs), which clearly distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like audit_add_triggers and audit_query_builder. The only minor ambiguity is whether it produces a standalone audit schema or audit tables mirroring the tables_to_audit parameter, but the deliverables largely resolve that.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. It does not say to run this before audit_add_triggers/audit_query_builder, when bootstrapping a new audit trail, or how it differs from other 'generate_schema' siblings (graphql_generate_schema, schema_generate_migration). An agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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