resolve_schema_gap

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

The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: it mandates user consent before invocation ('MUST present these options... and ask them to choose'), and explains the effect of each action (recheck for drift, abort to skip migration). This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation by detailing the destructive nature of the abort option.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately stating the critical user-interaction requirement. It contains no unnecessary words and places the critical constraint in an 'IMPORTANT' note.

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 the presence of an output schema and a 100% schema description coverage, the description provides all necessary information: the function, the mandatory user interaction, and meaning of each action. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without needing additional external knowledge.

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 input schema describes parameters but gives only a generic description for action ('Resolution action'). The description adds semantic meaning to the enum values, clarifying that 'recheck' means re-checking source schema for drift and 'abort' means skipping the migration. This goes beyond the schema's coverage.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('MANUAL_REVIEW_SCHEMA_GAP gate'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also lists the two resolution options, making the purpose unambiguous compared to sibling tools like skip_migration_job or confirm_migration.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to present the options to the user and obtain a choice before calling, providing a clear pre-condition. It does not, however, compare this tool to siblings or state when not to use it, though the gate-specific naming gives context.

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