Apply Codegen Sql

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: no arbitrary SQL is executed, no migrations or H2 files are written, menus and dictionaries are submitted separately and may partially succeed, and there is no cross-cutting rollback. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs for a mutating tool.

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 purpose and the apply gating are front-loaded, and the following sentences each carry a distinct constraint (no raw SQL, no migrations, partial success, no rollback). It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place; slightly clipped phrasing is the only cost.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value semantics need not be restated, and the description compensates by noting per-resource results and lack of rollback. However, for a 13-parameter mutation tool the absence of any per-parameter semantics leaves a real gap the sibling reference only partly fills.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It offers only a pointer that the same named parameters as generate_codegen_sql are used, giving no meaning, format, or defaults for any individual field, which is a significant shortfall.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: regenerate the plan and explicitly apply menu/derived-dictionary entries to the configuration database. It names the sibling generate_codegen_sql and distinguishes itself by being the 'apply' side rather than the generator, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite (codegen.apply_to_database=true) and a scope condition (only the mode=auto portion is applied), which tells the agent when the call will actually act. It does not spell out an explicit 'use X instead' decision path against the other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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