prepare_prompt_migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait: it does not rewrite the prompt. However, it does not explain whether the tool reads external state, produces a file, or has any other side 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and a key constraint efficiently.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and zero schema/description parameter coverage, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input semantics and workflow context remain under-specified.

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 little parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'prompt migration specification' implies source, target, and prompt are involved, but it does not explain the semantics of the seven inputs or what values are expected.

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 specific verb ('prepare') and a specific resource ('a prompt migration specification'), and adds a useful negative constraint ('without rewriting the prompt'). It is clear on its face, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as prepare_invocation_migration or generate_migration_plan.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_prompt, prepare_invocation_migration, or generate_migration_plan. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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