migrate_compose_icons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions two modes (dry-run/apply) and a safety rule ('complex expressions are reported, never guessed'), but it does not elaborate on the side effects of applying changes or the exact reporting format, leaving some uncertainty.

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 two sentences that front-load the core action, then add a prerequisite and a safety limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no waste, though a bit more structure could 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?

Given two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions, prerequisite, and a limitation. However, it omits details about what 'root' refers to and what the reporting output looks like, leaving some gaps for a migration tool.

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 only hints at the 'apply' boolean through 'Dry-run or apply' but does not explain the 'root' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema and fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 performs a dry-run or apply operation to migrate standard Compose Icons.* references to local painterResource replacements, which is a specific action. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like audit_icons or delete_icon, though the phrasing is slightly awkward and could be misread.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Import drawables first') and hints at behavior regarding complex expressions, giving some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with related tools, so users must infer the appropriate context.

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