Prepare Prompt Migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool does not rewrite the prompt, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint. However, it does not disclose what the output specification contains, whether any side effects occur, or whether the tool performs validation or analysis. The description is honest about the non-mutating nature but lacks depth about the actual behavior.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and does not waste words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description does not explain what the output specification looks like, what the required parameters represent, or how this tool fits into the migration workflow. The output schema exists but the description should still clarify the tool's role relative to siblings like generate_migration_plan. The description is too thin for the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 parameters, but it does not explain any of them. The description mentions 'prompt migration specification' but does not clarify what 'source', 'target', or 'prompt' mean in this context, nor the optional parameters like source_path, source_role, or platform fields. The agent must infer parameter semantics entirely from names and the schema, which is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 resource ('prompt migration specification') and adds a key constraint ('without rewriting the prompt'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_migration_plan or run_migration_eval, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The phrase 'without rewriting the prompt' clarifies the tool's non-destructive intent, which is helpful for an agent deciding between this and a migration execution tool.

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 the tool is for preparing a specification rather than executing a migration, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like generate_migration_plan or prepare_invocation_migration, nor does it mention any prerequisites or follow-up steps. The 'without rewriting' phrase hints at a non-execution role, but the guidance is not explicit enough for an agent to confidently choose between this and similar planning tools.

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