db_deduplicate_embeddings

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

The description adds meaningful safety context beyond the annotations: rows without a confirmed vec0 mirror retain their BLOBs, the default is a report-only dry run, and pages are only returned to the filesystem after db_compact. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and does not contradict destructiveHint=false because the operation is gated and preserves fallback data.

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?

Three tight sentences in logical order: statement of purpose, gating behavior, and follow-up action. Every sentence adds essential information with no filler 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema available, so return-value details do not need to live in the description. The description covers the operation's effect, safety guarantees, default mode, and the required follow-up, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides only a boolean dry_run with a default and no description, but the tool description explains that the operation defaults to a report-only dry run, giving the parameter practical meaning. It could be even clearer by naming the parameter explicitly, but the single parameter is adequately covered.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (Remove), a precise object (base-table embedding BLOBs), and the qualifying condition (already represented in sqlite-vec), so the tool's purpose is immediately distinct from maintenance siblings like db_compact. The description also clarifies what is preserved, avoiding ambiguity about data loss.

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 explains the operational context: it is coverage-gated, defaults to a report-only dry run, and should be followed by db_compact to reclaim space. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the sibling list contains no close analog, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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