schema_detect_drift

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the compare operation and does not mention whether the tool mutates anything, what it returns, what authorization is needed, or how the optional api_key is used.

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 one compact sentence with no filler and puts the action first. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward comparison tool.

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 description defines the essential inputs and operation, but with no output schema it does not explain what the agent should expect as a result or how api_key factors in. It is adequate for a simple comparison tool, but not fully complete.

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 schema describes models_path and migrations_path, and the description adds relational meaning by framing them as compared sides. However, api_key has no schema description and the description does not explain its role, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Compare') with clear resource objects: ORM models/schema definitions versus the actual migration state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like schema_generate_migration and schema_validate_migration, which are generative or validation-focused rather than drift-detection-focused.

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 the tool is used when you want to check whether ORM models have diverged from migrations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or give exclusions. Usage context is present only by implication.

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