athena_schema_migrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses crucial behavioral traits: the migration is additive, version 1 only inventories/pins, and it does not destructively rewrite organ tables. This goes beyond the basic 'apply' statement and provides essential safety-relevant context. Some gaps remain (e.g., error behavior, idempotency), but the added value is strong.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the action, sequence (next), and non-destructive nature. However, it leaves ambiguity around what constitutes a 'migration receipt' and how 'next' is determined, and does not describe return behavior or side effects beyond the safety note. This feels adequate but not fully complete.

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 has one parameter ('actor') with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter or add any meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, this dimension scores minimal.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('the next explicit additive schema migration receipt'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like athena_schema_plan/status/verify by focusing on the apply step, and clarifies the version 1 behavior as inventory/pin rather than destructive rewrite.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need to apply the next migration) and provides context about being additive/non-destructive. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like schema_verify or schema_plan for verification or planning.

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