audit_migrations

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by detailing the specific behavioral aspects: what types of destructive operations are detected, missing rollbacks, and schema drift, as well as framework support. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and specifics; the second lists supported frameworks concisely. Every part earns its place.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool checks (destructive ops, rollbacks, drift), the frameworks supported, and the nature of the analysis. No additional information is needed.

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 only parameter 'projectPath' is fully described in the schema with an 'Absolute path to the project root directory' description. The tool description does not add extra context beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'audit', the resource 'database migration files', and the exact checks performed (destructive operations, missing rollbacks, schema drift). It also lists supported frameworks, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like 'audit_prisma' which are more narrow.

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 usage for auditing migration safety and supports multiple frameworks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'audit_breaking_changes' or 'audit_prisma'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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