rollback_migration_with_down_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'rollback' and 'using stored down SQL', which implies a destructive operation but does not state whether rollback is reversible, what happens to existing data, or any side effects. Important behavioral context is missing.

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 short sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it might benefit from slight expansion for context.

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?

Given the tool's potential impact (database migration rollback), the description is inadequate. It does not clarify what 'down SQL' entails, what the return value is (no output schema), or any success/failure indicators. The context signals show a simple schema, but the description should still provide more operational details.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('Migration version'). The tool description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 action (rollback), the resource (migration), and the specific method (using stored down SQL). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'rollback_migration' or 'rollback_to_version' by highlighting the use of stored down SQL.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., migration must have down SQL stored), when not to use it, or any conditions. The sibling tools suggest different rollback methods, but the description does not clarify the appropriate context for this one.

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