Faf Migrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that it bumps faf_version, ensures section roots exist, re-serializes, preserves values, and offers dry_run previewing. It does not cover permissions, error handling, or whether migrations are idempotent, but the core effects are unusually 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 front-loaded with the main action, then adds necessary behavioral details in a compact paragraph. Every sentence adds useful context about scope, guarantees, and dry_run, with no filler.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with two parameters and an output schema, so return values do not need explanation here. The description covers the migration behavior, what gets modified, and what stays untouched, but could add a brief note on prerequisites or idempotency.

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% for both parameters. The description explains dry_run ('Pass dry_run=true to preview') and implies the path is the .faf file to migrate, but it does not document the default filename or path format, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Migrate a .faf file to the current format version (3.0)'. It adds concrete detail about what migration changes, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like faf_init or faf_validate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 when the tool is useful ('Migrate a .faf file to the current format version') and mentions the dry_run preview option, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings or what conditions require migration versus validation.

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