Migrate Effort

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: preview mode writes nothing, filename rewriting is opt-in and off by default, and unrecognized files are ignored. It also explains id preservation and minting, giving the agent a clear picture of runtime effects.

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 filler. It front-loads the main purpose followed by critical safety/write behaviors, making every sentence earn its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what operations occur, preview safety, opt-in renaming, and ignored files. It is slightly thin on post-conditions or return value, but sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the 'rename' parameter is opt-in and off by default to preserve relative links, and that 'preview' writes nothing. This is meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Normalize') and clearly identifies the resource ('Legacy Tickets in an Effort'), detailing exact transformations (schema frontmatter, id preservation/minting, prose Edges to blocked_by). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tickets or update_ticket, which deal with current tickets.

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 description implies usage context: it's for normalizing legacy tickets within an effort, and mentions opt-in filename rewriting and preview behavior. However, it does not explicitly provide exclusions or alternative tool references, so it stops short of a full 5.

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