guided_schema_migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions starting a 'workflow' and 'wizard', implying an interactive or step-by-step process, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, if it's asynchronous, or what the expected output entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely initiates significant operations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Start the Schema Migration Wizard workflow'). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 the tool likely initiates a complex migration workflow with no annotations, the description is minimal. It mentions a 'wizard' and 'workflow', hinting at interactivity, but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't leverage this to provide context, making it incomplete for safe agent 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no required inputs by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy.

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 the tool 'Start[s] the Schema Migration Wizard workflow for guided schema migration', which provides a clear verb ('Start') and resource ('Schema Migration Wizard workflow'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'bulk_schema_migration' or 'guided_schema_evolution', leaving the specific scope of 'guided' versus other migration approaches unclear.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'bulk_schema_migration' and 'guided_schema_evolution', there's no indication of prerequisites, target scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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