migrate_channel_axis

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (false), the description adds crucial behavioral details: non-destructive (only channel column changes), idempotent, dry_run behavior, and unrecoverable bucket handling. This fully informs the agent of 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 detailed but each sentence conveys essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates on nuances. Some jargon ('knob2 v2 default flip prep') may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema, many siblings), the description covers behavior in dry run vs. real run, idempotency, and unrecoverable handling. It could mention expected return format, but the description adequately informs the agent.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds extra context, such as the purpose of dry_run and globalize_unrecoverable, and explains the unrecoverable bucket, which enhances understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: migrating bridge-type memories to concrete channels, with specific details about the bridge type 'discord' and the session_id format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing a unique operation.

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 context on when to use the tool (e.g., for knob2 v2 flip prep) and explains behaviors like dry_run and globalize_unrecoverable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools 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.