Generate Codegen Sql

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: even if codegen.apply_to_database=true the tool will not apply to the database, and SQL files are written by the AI rather than by this tool. This clarifies destructive boundaries beyond the annotation bar.

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?

Purpose and safety constraints are front-loaded and the prose is dense with no filler. The trailing parameter notes read as appended patches rather than a structured parameter section, slightly hurting flow.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the read-only safety model is well covered. However, for a 13-parameter tool the undocumented majority of inputs leaves an agent without enough guidance to set most arguments correctly.

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 carries the full burden. Only backend_module_dir and backend_package_module are explained (with accepted format variants), leaving the other 11 parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (generate) and precise resources (menu, derived dictionary, H2 SQL content and paths) scoped to a named business table. It also distinguishes itself from apply_codegen_sql, which actually applies menu/dictionary changes, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Explicitly defines when and when-not: it does not write files or the DB, and real menu/dictionary application requires explicitly calling apply_codegen_sql. It also specifies mode behavior (auto/migration_only generate, disabled does not), leaving nothing to inference.

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