prepare_invocation_migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'without editing application files' usefully discloses a key non-destructive behavior. Yet it does not clarify whether the tool returns a contract in-memory, persists anything, validates inputs, or has other side effects, leaving substantial behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficient, but its brevity contributes to under-specification, so it does not earn a top score.

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?

The tool has five parameters, zero parameter descriptions, no annotations, and only the existence of an output schema without visible detail. The description leaves core input semantics and tool-selection context unstated, so an agent would lack essential information for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain source, target, application_path, source_platform, or target_platform; the word 'target' in the description is too weak to provide meaningful parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('target invocation contract'), and adds a meaningful constraint ('without editing application files'). It is distinguishable from generic migration-related tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like prepare_prompt_migration or define what an invocation contract is.

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 phrase 'without editing application files' implies a non-file-modifying preparation context, which gives some usage signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related siblings such as analyze_invocation or prepare_prompt_migration, and no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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