migrate_attachments

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds crucial behavioral details: dry-run default, apply=true gate, hash verification, moving originals to trash, and explicitly never emptying trash. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core workflow and purpose, then provides essential safety warnings. Every sentence adds value: the process, the quota benefit, the dry-run requirement, and the trash-handling exclusion.

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?

For a destructive, multi-step migration tool, the description covers the main workflow, safety gates, and sibling routing well. However, it omits details on several parameters (limit, modes, dest_dir, include_local_only) that could matter for correct execution, leaving some contextual gaps despite the output schema.

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 compensate, but it only clarifies apply=true and indirectly mentions trash_originals. The meanings of limit, modes, dest_dir, and include_local_only remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at important behavioral controls.

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: 'Convert Zotero imported (cloud-stored) attachments into linked files' with a concrete process (copy/download, hash-verify, create linked_file, trash original). It also names the related sibling plan_attachment_migration and contrasts with inspect_trash/empty_trash, making differentiation clear.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: it defaults to a dry run, requires apply=true only after showing plan_attachment_migration output, and explicitly redirects trash-emptying to inspect_trash then empty_trash. This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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