Faf Migrate

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

Annotations declare destructive=true/false readOnly, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it names exactly what changes (faf_version bump, section roots created, re-serialization), what is preserved (values, legacy slot aliases), what is irreversibly lost (YAML comments and formatting), and how to preview via dry_run.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the precise transformation details and caveats. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information — no filler or repetition of the name.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described. The description covers mutation scope, data-loss caveat, idempotency-adjacent claims, and the dry-run escape hatch, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it safely.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, but the description explains the non-obvious dry_run semantics ('preview'), which is the parameter whose behavior actually matters; path is only implied via the .faf file reference.

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?

States a specific verb (migrate) and resource (.faf file) plus the target version (3.0), and its scope (version + structure only) clearly separates it from siblings like faf_init, faf_validate, and faf_score.

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?

Gives a clear condition of use (moving a file to the current format version) and an operational hint ('Pass dry_run=true to preview'), but never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one.

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