transfer_procedure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the underlying SQL command and provides a critical behavioral caveat about the schema definition not being updated. It also mentions the endpoint support. However, it does not describe reversibility, permissions, or error conditions.

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-organized: purpose statement, context sentence, caution paragraph, then parameter list. It is concise with no wasted words, front-loading the most important information.

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 the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: action, environment support, a key behavioral caveat, and parameter descriptions. It does not mention prerequisites like permissions or that the target schema must exist, which are minor 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?

Input schema provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates with an Args section that explains each parameter, including examples for qualified_name and target_schema. While succinct, it gives enough meaning for an AI agent to understand the required inputs.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'stored procedure', and distinguishes from sibling 'transfer_table' by noting the absence of an endpoint guard. It provides the SQL command used, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context on where the tool works (Fabric Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints) and explicitly compares to transfer_table. The caution about schema name not being rewritten gives important guidance on when to use or expect side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list prerequisites like target schema existence.

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