migrate_verify

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes the ISPCONFIG_DEST_URL requirement and implies a read-only comparison, but it does not describe what the comparison returns, whether any writes occur, or how results are reported. This is adequate but not rich.

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: the first states the tool's purpose and timing, the second states a required environment variable. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one enum parameter, no output schema, and clear positional context, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention what kind of output the agent should expect, but the purpose, timing, and key requirement are all present.

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 single parameter 'scope' is fully described in the schema with an enum and a description ('What to verify'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the scope values, so 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 action ('Compare source and destination ISPConfig instances') and a temporal context ('after migration'), making its purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinguished from sibling migrate_export/migrate_import/migrate_plan tools by being a verification step rather than a data transfer step.

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 phrase 'after migration' provides a clear context for when this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the post-migration position is a strong usage signal for an agent.

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