migrate_project_layout

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose effects and side effects. It only states a copy action but omits details on whether it is destructive, reversible, or how it interacts with existing data. The default dry_run=true hints at safety but is not explained.

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 very concise (8 words), which is good for efficiency, but it sacrifices important details. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the lack of supporting information reduces its utility.

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 6 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description should provide substantial context. It fails to explain inputs, outputs, or behavior, making it highly incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the 6 parameters (dry_run, include, target_layout, etc.) or their purposes, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the verb ('Copy') and the resource ('curated legacy project content into visible shared project storage'). While it differentiates from some siblings (e.g., inspect_project_layout), it does not explicitly distinguish from all, but the action is specific enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as inspect_project_layout or initialize_project. No scenario or prerequisite information is provided.

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