Repair database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation and idempotency. The description adds that the operation is asynchronous and that the database name must be the exact name from the list databases endpoint, which are useful behavioral details beyond 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and async nature are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a parameter constraint. Perfectly sized.

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 maintenance tool with two required params and no output schema, the description covers the when-to-use, the async behavior, and the critical name format. It does not mention how to track completion or response format, but given the simple scope and annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the 'name' requirement but adds no new meaning for 'username' (schema only says 'username parameter'). Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides marginal added value.

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 action (repairs corrupted database tables), the resource (database tables), and the asynchronous nature. This distinguishes it from other database tools like change password or delete, and the verb+resource is specific.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when database errors, crashes, or corruption are reported', giving a clear trigger condition. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5 but is above a 3 because the usage context is direct.

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