generate_plugin_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate a new database migration' without revealing side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting existing migrations, validation requirements), whether the plugin must already exist, or any idempotency guarantees. This is a significant gap for a generation 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 description is a single, well-formed sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, and the qualifier is concise. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description fails to mention what the tool returns or produces (e.g., a file path, a success message), or any prerequisites like plugin existence. For a generator with side effects, this is incomplete—an agent cannot anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the vague 'generate'.

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 all four parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, such as constraints or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 ('Generate'), a resource ('database migration'), and a qualifier ('for a specific plugin'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'generate_migration' which likely targets general migrations. The mention of 'table definitions' further clarifies the scope. This is unambiguous and specific.

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?

The phrase 'for a specific plugin' provides clear context that this tool is intended when working with a plugin, implying a distinction from generic migration generation. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., generate_migration) or state when not to use it. Thus, it has clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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