plan_attachment_migration

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by explicitly stating 'Nothing is written, downloaded, or trashed.' It also discloses what the planning report includes: attachments that would be converted, ones requiring download first, and skip reasons. This is transparent about side effects and operational behavior.

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 well structured: purpose is front-loaded, read-only behavior is explicitly highlighted, and the migration sequencing note is placed at the end. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

The high-level context is strong: it explains the tool is a safe planning step, what it inventories, what it reports, and that it should precede migrate_attachments. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. However, all five optional parameters are completely undocumented, leaving customization to inference, so completeness is only moderate.

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% and the description provides no explanation of limit, modes, dest_dir, response_format, or include_local_only. An agent cannot infer what modes values are valid, what limit controls, or how dest_dir affects planning. This is a complete gap in parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan a migration') and identifies the exact resource ('Zotero imported (cloud-stored) attachments to linked files') with a clear goal: free cloud storage while keeping PDFs local. It also distinguishes itself from the follow-up sibling migrate_attachments by explicitly framing itself as the read-only precursor.

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 clearly instructs 'Run this before migrate_attachments,' giving an explicit temporal usage context. It doesn't spell out when not to use it or compare it to other alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is strong and actionable.

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