Prepare Invocation Migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'prepare' and 'without editing application files,' which is vague—it doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., creates a contract object, returns data, requires permissions) or what side effects might occur.

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, concise sentence with a clear verb and subject. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a relevant constraint, making it easy to parse. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is penalized elsewhere.

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 an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete for a tool with five parameters and no annotations. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and any indication of when to call it in the migration workflow. An agent would not know what inputs to provide or how this tool fits with siblings like prepare_prompt_migration or generate_migration_plan.

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%, and the description adds no information about the five parameters (application_path, source, target, source_platform, target_platform). The names provide some hints, but the description does nothing to clarify their meaning, types, or relationships, forcing the agent to infer from names 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 states a clear action ('Prepare a target invocation contract') and adds a key differentiator ('without editing application files'), which distinguishes it from file-editing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like prepare_prompt_migration, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description gives no context about the migration workflow, leaving the agent to guess whether this should precede generate_migration_plan or start_migration.

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