apidep_migration_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Generate API migration guide (Pro feature)'. It does not state whether files are written, whether an API call is made, whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what happens when the Pro feature is unavailable.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. The 'Pro feature' qualifier is useful context, though the overall terseness means the conciseness is achieved by omitting substantive guidance rather than by compactly presenting rich information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters where one is undocumented, the description is not complete enough. An agent would still need to infer the meaning of 'API migration guide', the role of `api_key`, the output format, and whether this tool should run before or after apidep_scan or apidep_generate_warnings.

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 only 50%: `directory` is described as 'Project directory', but `api_key` has no description at all. The tool description adds no explanation of how the parameters are used or why `api_key` may be needed, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Generate') and a specific resource ('API migration guide'), so an agent can tell this is about producing a migration guide. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools apidep_scan or apidep_generate_warnings, but the resource name is distinct enough to be 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related apidep tools, when not to use it, or what prerequisites exist beyond the 'Pro feature' hint. The required `directory` parameter implies a project context, but the description never explains the intended workflow or ordering with sibling tools.

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