tenant_design_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the design intent. It does not mention authentication via api_key, whether the tool generates DDL/recommendations, or whether it makes external calls or has side effects.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and object, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a short definition, even though it leaves behavioral details to other dimensions.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks critical context: what the design output will be, whether an API key is required to authenticate to an external service, and how the database/strategy choices affect the result. This is incomplete for a moderately parameterized tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds only the phrase 'isolation strategy selection,' which maps to the strategy parameter but provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Design') and resource ('multi-tenant database schema'), and adds the isolation-strategy angle that sets it apart from sibling tools like tenant_generate_middleware. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from tenant_isolation_setup or describe what the design output looks like.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool references appear in the description. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is for schema design rather than isolation setup.

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