migrate_plan

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it earns credit for explicitly declaring non-mutation with 'Does NOT make any changes.' Beyond that, it stays silent on what the plan contains, how it is returned, whether it requires network/API access to the source, and what happens if parts of the source are unreachable.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, a clarifying clause second, and the key safety disclaimer last. Every word earns its place, and the critical non-mutation trait is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is adequate on purpose and safety, but it relies on the name 'migrate_plan' and the sibling list to position the tool in the workflow. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing what a generated plan looks like, and 'the source' remains ambiguous.

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 coverage is 100% — the schema documents scope as 'What to inventory,' which mirrors the description's phrase 'inventory what exists on the source.' The description adds no detail about the enum values (all/dns/mail/sites), but none is needed since the schema already covers the semantics. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('a migration plan'), and clarifies the operation as an inventory of what exists on the source. The closing note, 'Does NOT make any changes,' differentiates it from the mutating siblings and the migrate_import/migrate_export tools. However, 'the source' is left undefined, so an agent must infer it refers to the origin server/panel.

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 colon structure implies the tool is for the planning phase of a migration, but it never says when to reach for it versus migrate_export_*, migrate_verify, or the plain list tools. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or excluded alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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