check_db_drift

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains error vs warning semantics ('strict promotes to errors'), states read-only nature ('Read-only'), guarantees security ('database URL never leaves this process'), and notes plan/login requirements ('Pro plan required; requires login').

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, error/warning behavior, and safety/prerequisites. No fluff or repetition.

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 moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool checks and the error/warning behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the mention of errors and warnings implies its shape. Slight gap is that it doesn't mention output structure or examples, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the descriptions in the schema already explain each parameter (url, schemaSql, dialect, source, etc.). The tool description echoes the url/schemaSql distinction and strict's effect, but adds no new meaning beyond 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 function: 'Checks whether a live database (url) or a schema dump (schemaSql) has drifted from the ERD's physical model.' It names a specific verb and resource, and the scope (errors vs warnings) distinguishes it from related tools like diff_erds or introspect_db.

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 when to use the tool (to check drift) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions needing a login and Pro plan, which are prerequisites, but does not contrast with sibling tools like introspect_db or diff_erds. Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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