Project Tessera

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. It effectively describes key behaviors: creates a backup before migration (safety measure), supports dry-run mode for previewing changes, and handles specific version upgrades. However, it doesn't mention potential risks, time requirements, or authentication needs.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place: backup creation, dry-run usage, and version scope are all essential information with zero wasted words.

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 that this is a potentially destructive migration tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, behavior, and parameter usage. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or potential data loss risks, but the presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the purpose and usage of the 'dry_run' parameter: 'Use dry_run=True to preview changes.' This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. The description doesn't mention default values or other parameter details, but with only one parameter, this is sufficient.

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 specific action ('Migrate Tessera data'), target resource ('latest schema version'), and scope ('v0.6.x through v1.0.0 data format upgrades'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on data migration rather than search, import/export, or status operations.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use dry_run=True to preview changes' indicates an alternative mode of operation. It also implies when to use this tool (for schema upgrades) versus other tools that handle different operations like import/export or search.

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