migrate_packages

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It only states the core action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modifications, network dependencies, rollback options, or destructive potential). The 'auto_migrate' parameter hints at interactivity but is not explained.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without fluff.

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 migration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain migration behavior, safety measures, success criteria, or how to handle conflicts. The complexity of the operation warrants more context.

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 fully describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. 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 the verb 'migrate' and the resource 'deprecated packages', and specifies the action of replacing them with 'recommended alternatives'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'audit_packages' or 'upgrade_packages'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_packages for checking deprecated packages, upgrade_packages for simple updates). The description lacks context for optimal usage scenarios.

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