apply_obligation_migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only access to legacy files, dry_run behavior, instance-level dedup, and handling of ambiguous rows. It does not mention error handling or side effects on existing data, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence explaining purpose, followed by bullet-like details on source types, dedup, dry_run, and read-only behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or output format, which is a notable gap for a migration tool. It also fails to document two of five parameters. While core behavior is covered, the description is incomplete for full autonomous use.

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%. The description adds meaning for source (two enumerated values) and dry_run (default previews). However, it ignores path format, options, and db_path parameters, leaving them unexplained. It adds partial value but not enough to compensate for low coverage.

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's purpose: 'Migrate the complete obligation set from a legacy source into canonical rows.' It specifies verb (migrate), resource (obligation set), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_obligations (read-only) and apply_obligation_instances (applying instances).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (migrating legacy obligations), explains the two source types and their reliability, and mentions dry_run as a safe preview. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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