schema_validate_migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool is non-destructive ('check', not 'apply') and flags the Pro feature constraint, which hints at licensing/auth expectations around the api_key parameter. It does not disclose the result contract (issue list, pass/fail, severities) or what happens without a Pro entitlement.

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 12-word sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the workflow constraint and Pro caveat. Every word earns its place, 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: the expected return shape is unknown, how table_row_estimates influences the safety analysis is unexplained, and the Pro/api_key gating relationship is not spelled out. An agent could invoke the tool but not anticipate its response or failure modes.

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 coverage is exactly 50%, and the description adds only general context ('migration file', 'safety issues') rather than parameter-level meaning. The gap is partially mitigated because db_type is self-explanatory via its enum, api_key is a conventional name, and table_row_estimates is already documented with an example in the schema; still, the description does not compensate for the undocumented half.

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 ('check'), a resource ('migration file'), and a concrete scope ('common safety issues'), so an agent knows what the tool does. Its role is distinguishable from the closest schema_* siblings (schema_generate_migration, schema_detect_drift, schema_generate_docs) by verb and intent, though it stops short of naming an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Before running it' explicitly places this tool in the pre-migration workflow step, which is clear contextual guidance an agent can act on. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for generation or drift detection), so it misses the exclusion guidance that would earn a 5.

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