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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that start launches billed background re-embedding, continues enrichment, and switches slices after coverage, plus the limitation that cancel does not guarantee interruption. It also notes owner permissions and cost preview, which are not in 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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, permission requirements, action-specific guidance, parameter requirements, and behavioral caveats. It front-loads the purpose and organizes details logically, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 an output schema present and a complex multi-action tool, the description covers permissions, parameter requirements, side effects, and limitations. It leaves no obvious gap for an agent to call it correctly, and it references documentation for deeper detail.

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%, so parameters are documented, but the description adds crucial conditional semantics: target_model is required for preview/start, and source_model defaults to the current space when omitted. It also clarifies that concept_types scopes the move, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 inspects or migrates the organization's concept embedding space, with explicit action types (status, preview, start, cancel). This distinguishes it from other tools by focusing on embedding migration specifically. No other sibling tool appears to cover this domain.

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 maps actions to permission levels: status is read-only, while preview, start, and cancel require owner. It also advises running preview before start to review cost and collisions, and clarifies that cancel does not guarantee interruption or rollback. This is actionable guidance for an agent deciding which action to invoke.

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