Migrate Effort

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: preview writes nothing, filename rewriting is opt-in with a link-preservation rationale, unrecognized files are ignored, and id/edge handling rules are spelled out. This goes well beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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?

Four tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then highlight the two safety/decision-critical behaviors (preview, rename opt-in), and close with a clear boundary for unrecognized files. No redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, the safe preview mode, the opt-in rename behavior, and the handling of unrecognized files. The destructive nature is carried by the annotation and reinforced by the preview note. Minor omissions like return format or transactional guarantees are acceptable given the simple required-parameter surface and strong schema coverage.

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?

The input schema documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, including defaults and behavioral implications (e.g., rename off by default, preview defaults to false). The description reinforces the rename and preview behaviors but adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema. With such high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Normalize') and resource ('Legacy Tickets in an Effort'), then lists concrete transformations: schema frontmatter, id preservation/minting, and prose-edge conversion. This clearly differentiates it from sibling CRUD tools like create_tickets or update_ticket, which operate on new or existing ticket state rather than legacy format migration.

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?

The purpose statement makes it obvious when to use this tool—when there are legacy tickets in an Effort that need normalization. It also highlights that preview mode writes nothing, giving a clear safe-usage path. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but since no sibling offers migration functionality, the usage context is unambiguous.

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