hsm_migration_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states 'Works without AWS credentials' and says the tool 'Returns detailed migration guidance,' signaling a read-only informational behavior. It does not describe the detailed output structure, but for a notes/guidance tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 brief and well-structured: the invocation scenario is front-loaded, the exclusions are given, and the single argument is documented inline. No sentence is wasted.

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 informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the exact allowed topics, the kind of return value, and the credentials requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema only declares a required string 'topic' with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description compensates fully by listing the only valid values: 'lmk', 'dukpt', and 'fixed_key', making the parameter unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 use case ('Call this when discussing HSM migration for concepts that have no direct APC equivalent'), enumerates the exact topics covered, and says it returns detailed migration guidance. This clearly identifies the tool's action and resource, distinguishing it from the operational key-management siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('when discussing HSM migration for concepts that have no direct APC equivalent') and lists the specific topics that warrant calling it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'no direct APC equivalent' phrasing implies an exclusion boundary.

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