migration_risk

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful analytic context about what it flags and that include_applied can extend classification to already-run migrations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded: first the general purpose, then the specific risk signals, then the argument explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is easy to scan.

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?

With one optional parameter, no required arguments, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to select and invoke the tool. The behavior is sufficiently described, and the output schema handles return-value details.

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 schema only exposes a boolean 'include_applied' with a default, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that include_applied means 'also classify migrations that already ran,' which gives the agent the key semantic needed to use the parameter correctly.

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 states a specific action ('Rate migrations') and resource ('a live database'), then adds concrete criteria by listing dangerous operations: blocking writes, rewriting a table, or breaking running code during a rolling deploy. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like deploy_safety.

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 usage: use this when you need to evaluate the risk of database migrations against a live system, especially around write availability and rolling deploys. It does not explicitly describe when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as deploy_safety, but the intended context is clear enough.

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