propose_migration_or_edit

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

Explicitly states 'Nothing is written' and describes workflow with proposal_id and one-time token. Explains parameter priority (sql over request). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it does well but could add more on error handling.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, structured bullet list for parameters. Efficient but not perfectly concise; still clear and easy to 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?

Covers purpose, parameters, workflow, and next steps. Output schema exists so return details not needed. Could add error handling or validation notes, but sufficient for the complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, context (e.g., kind='db' or 'config', connection for db, path for config), and behavior (sql takes priority over request).

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?

Clearly states the tool proposes either a DB migration or config edit, returns a proposal_id, and distinguishes from sibling apply_change. The description uses specific verbs and resources.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to create proposals before applying changes, with explicit next steps (simulate_impact, apply_change). However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the workflow.

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