Estimate lock duration and production outage risk before running SQL migrations by analyzing row counts. Identify high-risk DDL changes to plan safer deployment windows.
Estimate lock duration and production outage risk based on table row count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sql | Yes | Raw SQL migration script. | |
| sample_row_count | No | Estimated target table row count (default: 100,000). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Estimate' and the tool's dry-run framing imply a non-destructive read, and it usefully signals that output concerns outage risk, but it never explicitly states that no migration is applied, nor does it describe limits, cost, or return format.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler and a front-loaded statement of what is computed. It is, however, arguably too terse for a tool whose name implies a richer 'plan' output.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage the input side is complete, but there is no output schema and the description never explains what the 'plan' or risk estimate looks like. An agent knows what it computes but not what it receives back.
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 both 'sql' and 'sample_row_count' are already documented. The description reinforces that row count drives the estimate, which usefully connects sample_row_count to the result, but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema.
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 names a specific computation – estimating lock duration and production outage risk – but diverges from the tool name, which promises a 'dry run plan.' An agent sees no mention of what the plan actually contains, leaving the link between the name and the described output unclear.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to the siblings analyze_migration_safety, detect_table_locks, or inspect_schema_diff. The agent must infer that this is a pre-execution estimation step rather than an analysis of an already-running migration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.