cfg_migrate_plan

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

Describes non-destructive behavior ('without rewriting'), outputs as ordered hops, automatic rewrites, manual steps, and warnings. With no annotations, provides solid behavioral context, though omits permissions or error scenarios.

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?

Short, front-loaded description with concise bullet-like parameter details. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value.

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?

Describes what the plan includes (hops, rewrites, manual steps, warnings), fitting for a planning tool. Output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere. Could specify output format, but acceptable.

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?

All three parameters (config_content, from_version, to_version) are explained with clear descriptions and examples (e.g., version formats). Since schema coverage is 0%, description fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 it reports what a version migration would do without rewriting, using the strong analogy 'Terraform-plan equivalent'. Distinguishes from sibling 'cfg_migrate' which does the actual migration.

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?

Implied use case (preview migration impact), but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives like 'cfg_dry_run'. Missing guidance on prerequisites or condition checks.

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