oci_kafka_change_cluster_compartment

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation requires confirmation, is high risk, and affects IAM policies. However, it does not mention whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, its reversibility, or any downtime implications. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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 concise, with a clear opening statement followed by risk warnings and arguments. It is well-structured and front-loaded. However, the arguments list could be formatted more clearly (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main purpose, risk, and arguments. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) and does not explain the return value, though the output schema may cover that. Additional context like typical use cases would improve completeness.

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. It provides basic explanations: 'cluster_id: OCI Kafka cluster OCID to move' and 'target_compartment_id: Target OCI compartment OCID.' This adds meaning beyond the parameter names but lacks details like OCID format or validation rules.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Move an OCI Kafka cluster to a different OCI compartment.' This is specific, uses a strong verb ('move'), and identifies the exact resource (OCI Kafka cluster) and target (different compartment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'oci_kafka_change_cluster_config_compartment' which deals with config compartment.

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 mentions it requires --allow-writes, is high risk, requires confirmation, and changes IAM policies. This guides usage by warning about prerequisites and consequences. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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