Migrate Skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of side-effect disclosure, and it does reveal a copy-then-verify workflow tied to a later removal. However, it leaves ambiguous whether the tool itself removes the source, what 'verify' entails, and what happens on verification failure. This is useful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action. The brevity is a strength even though it leaves some context gaps scored elsewhere.

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 3-required-parameter migration tool with no annotations, this is minimally adequate: the agent knows the operation, can infer source and destination from parameter names, and an output schema exists for the return shape. However, it lacks guidance on store-identifier semantics, conflict or overwrite behavior, and whether the source is actually deleted, so the tool is not fully self-contained.

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 0%, and the description does not define 'from_store', 'to_store', or 'name'; it only alludes to 'a skill' and 'writable source'. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific action ('Copy and verify') and identifies the resource ('a skill') and the migration context ('before removing a writable source'). This distinguishes it from the sibling migrate_store, which concerns stores rather than skills. It is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 phrase 'before removing a writable source' provides a clear workflow condition: use this tool when a skill needs to be safely relocated off a writable source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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