cfg_migrate

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

Discloses key behaviors: hop chain walking, automatic rewrites, warning reporting, and validation step. Lacks explicit statement about output format or side effects, but with no annotations, this adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Efficient two-paragraph structure: purpose + process, then parameter list. No wasted sentences, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Adequately describes what the tool does and its output (migrated config, warnings). Given that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential aspects without needing full return details.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role (current config text, source/target versions, validation toggle). Adds meaning beyond the schema's type/title only.

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?

Clearly states 'Migrate a configuration between OpenSIPS versions', providing a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like cfg_migrate_plan and cfg_diff through the hop chain description.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: automatic migration with hop chain traversal and manual fallback for warnings. Mentions optional validation. Could explicitly contrast with cfg_migrate_plan but still effective.

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