fluig_process_convert_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses irreversibility, loss of in-progress work on bad mapping, the finalize-and-recreate side effect, and the dryRun-first behavior of `confirm`. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive batch mutation.

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 most important warning is front-loaded and every sentence carries an operational instruction. It is somewhat long and the capitalized alarmist framing is louder than necessary, but no sentence is wasted.

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 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers destructiveness, dryRun preview, discovery helpers, and review workflow. It stops short of describing permission requirements or error/partial-failure behavior, which would round it out fully.

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% and every parameter is documented in-schema, including the positional pairing of actualStates/newStates and the dryRun semantics of `confirm`. The description mostly restates that ("chame primeiro SEM confirm") without adding format or validation rules beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: migrating open requests to a new process version, and clarifies that conversion finalizes pending tasks and creates new ones at the destination. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fluig_process_move, fluig_process_cancel, or fluig_process_version_release.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call first without `confirm` to get the dryRun mapping, review pair by pair, then confirm; never batch without review. It also routes the agent to fluig_request_list for instances and fluig_process_def_states for activities, naming concrete alternatives rather than leaving discovery to guesswork.

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