Migrate CERIF 1.5 to 1.6

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact steps (namespace replacement, schemaLocation update, release attribute removal), the return value (migrated XML plus change log), and the recommendation to validate. This is transparent for a migration tool, though it does not mention error handling or edge cases.

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 well-structured with numbered steps, and the validation note is essential. While a bit longer than minimal, each sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers inputs, the migration process, return content, and a validation recommendation. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (xml and file), with descriptions already explaining their roles. The tool description adds the alternative relationship between the two but no extra syntax or behavioral details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool migrates a CERIF 1.5 XML document to CERIF 1.6, with explicit steps and a reference to validate_xml for validation. This distinguishes it as the migration tool among siblings (which include validation and build 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?

It provides clear usage context by instructing to always validate the result with validate_xml, which tells the agent a next step. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but no other migration tool exists among siblings, so this is adequate.

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