run_migration_eval

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one useful behavioral fact—that the tool uses user-owned local provider credentials—but it does not disclose side effects, required authentication setup, execution behavior, or what the tool returns. This is only marginally more informative than a bare operation statement.

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 no filler, and the credential detail is relevant to execution. However, it is terse to the point of ambiguity—'Run source and target' does not clearly communicate the operation, so the conciseness comes at the cost of necessary clarity.

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?

This is a complex tool with three required nested object parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema. A single vague sentence is insufficient for an agent to know what suite, source_config, and target_config should contain, how credentials are provided, or what effects the run has. The description is far from complete.

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 almost no parameter meaning. 'Source and target' vaguely maps to source_config and target_config, but the suite parameter is entirely unaddressed, and none of the three nested object structures are explained. The description fails to compensate for the opaque 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 states a specific action ('Run source and target') and a relevant condition ('with user-owned local provider credentials'), but it never explicitly says it runs a migration eval or what 'source and target' refer to. It relies heavily on the tool name for meaning and does not clearly differentiate from siblings like generate_eval_suite or compare_outputs.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'user-owned local provider credentials' implies one usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of sibling tools or prerequisites such as an eval suite existing.

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