company_migrate_preview

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 explicitly states that nothing is persisted, which is the most important safety-relevant behavior for a preview tool. It does not cover permissions, transient side effects, or failure behavior, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key 'persists nothing' guarantee appears immediately after the action. The trailing 'JSON.' is terse and slightly ambiguous as to whether it refers to input or output format, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

Given six required parameters, zero parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description gives an agent insufficient information to reliably construct an invocation. It communicates the broad operation and a safety guarantee, but not the meaning of the JSON payloads or how the replay/proof workflow is expected to be initiated. The output schema may help with return values, but not with input construction.

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%, and the description does not explain the six required parameters or how they relate. 'bundle_json', 'to_plan_json', 'engine', and 'entity_ref' are left to inference from their names. The phrase 'revised plan' hints at to_plan_json, but no format, relationships, or required values are provided.

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 operation: replaying a persisted engine state under a revised plan and returning a migration proof. The 'persists nothing' qualifier reinforces the preview nature. However, terms like 'engine state', 'revised plan', and 'migration proof' are jargon-heavy and require domain knowledge.

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 description implies a dry-run/preview use case via 'persists nothing' and the tool name, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus an actual migration or any sibling tool. There is no statement of prerequisites or exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied.

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