transfer_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: ALTER SCHEMA TRANSFER does not rewrite the schema name inside the function's definition, so get_function may still show the old schema name. This is a significant side effect that an agent needs to know.

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 well-structured: main action, technical notes, caution, and Args section. It front-loads the purpose. However, it is slightly verbose with repeated 'ALTER SCHEMA ... TRANSFER' and could be tightened without losing clarity. Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the main behavior and the critical side effect. It does not mention error cases or required permissions, but for a moderately complex tool, it is fairly complete.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides clear, concise explanations for each parameter: workspace, item, qualified_name, and target_schema, including examples for the latter two. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 it moves a T-SQL user-defined function to another schema via ALTER SCHEMA TRANSFER, specifies supported endpoints (Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints), and distinguishes from table transfer by noting no endpoint guard applies. This provides a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling transfer tools.

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 gives clear context for usage (moving a function to another schema) and includes a caution about the behavior after transfer, which serves as implicit guidance on what to expect. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like transfer_procedure or transfer_table.

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