Generate migration SQL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds non-obvious behaviors: it does not apply the migration and does not compute blast radius. It also explicitly says 'Read-only'. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences plus 'Read-only' suffix, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second sentence gives use case and alternative. Extremely efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and comprehensive schema descriptions, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't describe the output format (SQL text), but given no output schema, this is acceptable. The sibling references add context. Minor gap: environment variable dependencies mentioned only in schema, but overall sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the detailed DSN formats. It is adequate but not extra.

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 clearly states the tool diffs two databases and returns migration SQL without applying or computing blast radius. It distinguishes from siblings like litescope_migrate_plan and litescope_migrate_apply, using specific verb 'diff' and resource 'SQLite or D1 databases'.

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?

Explicit when to use: 'when you only need the SQL to review or pass to litescope_migrate_apply'. Explicit alternative: 'For a full blast-radius analysis use litescope_migrate_plan'. This provides clear guidance for agent decision-making.

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