suggest_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context by stating that it returns fixed SQL and a list of changes, but 'safe violations' is vaguely defined, and there is no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or whether changes are applied directly. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope, and it includes the return value. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value; it does say it returns fixed SQL and a list of changes, but without detailing the structure of the changes list. It also doesn't clarify the definition of 'safe violations' or how this tool relates to check_before_apply, which could be important given the sibling tools. Overall, it is functional but leaves several gaps.

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% for both parameters (sql and pg_version), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and no extra context about how the parameters affect the fix behavior.

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 uses a specific verb 'Auto-fix' with a clear resource ('PostgreSQL migration SQL') and scope ('safe violations'). It also states what it returns (fixed SQL and list of changes), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like analyze_migration and check_before_apply.

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 this tool (when there are safe violations to fix) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No context about when to choose suggest_fix over check_before_apply or analyze_migration is provided, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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