start_data_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing behavioral: no permission/auth requirements, no async job semantics, no indication that an archive file must be uploaded, no statement of what state changes after the call. The only content is a path and a keyword dump.

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: a title-like phrase and a "Create migration" restatement, followed by a long keyword list that adds no informational value. It is padding rather than concise, and the meaningful part (POST endpoint) is not front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the migration does, that it consumes an uploaded archive, and what the caller can expect. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it correctly from the description alone.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the required archive file field and the migration_type enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, but the high coverage baseline keeps this at 3.

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 does identify a verb and resource ("Create migration" via POST /api/groups/migrations), so an agent can tell it belongs to the Migrations group. But it never says what a data migration actually does here (importing recipes from another app such as paprika or nextcloud), and the real signal is buried under keyword spam. It only mildly distinguishes itself from the hundreds of sibling create/group tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The keyword list mentions the tool's own name and generic verbs, which is noise, not routing guidance.

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