migrate_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dryRun preview behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether uploads overwrite existing assets, require authentication, or what happens after upload. The preview hint adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 two concise sentences, with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a practical tip. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 description is minimal and lacks details about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must already exist). Since there is no output schema or annotations to supplement, the description carries the full burden. It's sufficient for a simple upload tool but leaves room for more context about the migration behavior.

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 67%, with 'directory' and 'projectName' described in the schema. The 'dryRun' parameter lacks a schema description, but the tool description explains its purpose ('use dryRun=true to preview'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the missing parameter documentation and clarifies its effect.

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: 'Upload local image assets to AuraImage.' It uses a specific verb ('upload') and names both the resource ('local image assets') and destination ('AuraImage'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_lcp or generate_alt, which serve different functions.

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 a usage tip ('Use dryRun=true to preview') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for uploading assets but provides no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools. This is adequate but not explicit guidance.

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