transfer_procedure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the ALTER SCHEMA ... TRANSFER mechanism, warns that the schema name inside the stored definition is not rewritten, and notes that get_procedure may still show the old schema. This goes well beyond a bare action.

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 compact and structured: action, supported environments, a high-value caution, then parameters. Each sentence adds new information; no filler.

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 mutating transfer tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the full invocation contract: identify workspace/item, current qualified name, target schema, and the most surprising side effect. No critical selection or invocation detail is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the Args section is essential. It defines all four parameters, clarifies item as Warehouse/SQL endpoint name or GUID, and gives concrete examples for qualified_name and target_schema (dbo.usp_load, archive), providing meaning the title-only schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Move a stored procedure to another schema') and names the underlying SQL command, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates from transfer_table by noting the absence of an endpoint guard.

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?

States that the tool works for stored procedures on both Fabric Data Warehouses and SQL Analytics Endpoints, and contrasts with transfer_table. It does not explicitly list conditions for when to prefer it over other transfer_* siblings, but the context is sufficient.

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