run_ddl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses the destructive nature via DROP, the required confirm:true gate, and dry_run availability, giving essential safety cues beyond 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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the operation class, role restriction, and safety requirements. No filler words.

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?

Adequate for selecting the tool, but gaps remain for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema: dry_run semantics, confirm=false behavior, and postconditions are not described.

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 adds meaning by clarifying sql contains DDL and confirm must be true, but does not explain dry_run's effect or what happens if confirm is omitted/false.

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?

States specific DDL operations (CREATE/ALTER/DROP) and the target audience (migrator/admin), clearly differentiating it from siblings like run_select, run_dml, and explain_query.

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?

Provides clear context: this is for DDL operations and requires confirm:true, making the intended use explicit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the DDL scope and sibling names make the boundary obvious.

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