migrate_data_commands

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a critical behavior: the tool only generates commands and does not execute the transfer. It also names the command families (rsync/mysqldump). It doesn't mention output format or authentication requirements, but the core non-execution behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, then immediately communicates the most important operational constraint (manual execution). Every phrase earns its place.

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 description covers purpose, scope, and execution model well enough for an agent to decide to call it. With no output schema, a small mention of the output shape (e.g., a list of shell commands) would improve completeness, but the absence is not severely harmful given the tool's straightforward generation role.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only a high-level mapping to 'files, mail, databases' which mirrors the enum. It does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Generate rsync/mysqldump commands') and a specific resource ('actual data (files, mail, databases) between servers'). It also distinguishes itself from the config-focused migrate siblings by explicitly noting that the MCP handles config only, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need commands to transfer actual data, and the commands must be run manually. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'MCP handles config only' line effectively excludes config-management tasks.

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