migrate_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that one mode is non-mutating ('dry-run') and the other mutating ('explicitly persist'), which is key. However, it does not explain consequences of persisting, such as irreversibility, required permissions, or impact on the schema.

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 very short and front-loads the core action. Every word contributes, though it borders on under-specification and uses jargon that could obscure meaning. It is efficient but not fully self-explanatory.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call shape. Still, it omits context such as the need for migrations to be registered first, what persistence actually changes, and any safety or approval implications. It is minimally adequate but leaves 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the single boolean parameter: dry_run means perform a dry-run, while explicitly persisting corresponds to the non-dry-run path. This adds meaning beyond the bare boolean type and default.

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 identifies a clear action resource: it dry-runs or persists registered lazy schema migrations. It distinguishes the two modes, though it does not differentiate the tool from sibling tools and relies on niche terminology like 'lazy schema migrations'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The dry-run vs. persist phrasing implies two use modes, but it does not tell an agent when persistence is appropriate or what must be true before invoking it.

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