migrate_stack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It is transparent that this is a planning/advisory tool rather than an actual migration executor, and it explicitly lists the plan components (risk assessment, phased steps, rollback, GO/NO-GO). It does not discuss output format or side effects, but 'Plan' makes the non-executing nature clear.

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 that starts with the action and then enumerates the key components without filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 planning tool with five schema-covered parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid outline of expected outputs: comparison, risk assessment, migration phases, rollback plans, and a GO/NO-GO recommendation. It lacks explicit output format and how scale or team_size influence the plan, but it is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a slight mapping by calling current_stack and target_stack 'old vs new stack,' but it adds little meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions for scale, project_type, and team_size.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Plan a technology migration' and then names concrete deliverables that distinguish it from siblings: compare old vs new stack, risk assessment, phased migration steps, rollback plans, and GO/NO-GO recommendation. This clearly separates it from tools like compare_tech, recommend_stack, or generate_roadmap.

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?

Usage is implied by the action: an agent would invoke this when planning a technology migration. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention any alternatives among the many sibling tools, so routing decisions are left to inference.

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