generate_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool returns 'dialect-aware ALTER statements' and notes that 'destructive operations (DROP TABLE, DROP COLUMN) are commented out for safety.' This provides important context about output format and safety measures that wouldn't be apparent from the schema alone. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance implications or 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?

The description is well-structured and efficiently organized. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then presents two modes in a bullet-point format that's easy to parse, and concludes with important behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it both comprehensive and concise for the agent to understand.

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 the tool's complexity (schema comparison with multiple modes), zero annotation coverage, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, two operational modes with parameter semantics, output characteristics (dialect-aware ALTER statements), and safety features. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, making this description complete for agent understanding.

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 and 4 parameters, the description must fully compensate. It successfully explains the semantic meaning of all parameters: connection_id is for 'source database connection' in Mode 1, target_sql contains 'CREATE TABLE statements describing the desired schema,' from_connection is 'source database connection_id' in Mode 2, and to_connection is 'target database connection_id.' This adds crucial context beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate migration SQL by comparing two schemas.' It specifies the exact action (generate SQL), resource (migration), and method (schema comparison). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_schema (which likely describes schemas) or db_execute (which runs SQL) by focusing on migration generation through comparison.

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 explicitly defines two distinct modes of operation with clear parameter combinations: Mode 1 uses connection_id and target_sql to compare a live database against target DDL, while Mode 2 uses from_connection and to_connection to compare two live databases. This provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter set, helping the agent choose the correct mode based on available inputs.

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