Migrate Store

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 does add valuable behavior: per-skill iteration, stopping at the first error, and progress counts. However, it does not state whether migration copies or moves skills, whether the destination store must already exist, or whether existing destination skills are overwritten.

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 sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action and scope, then adds error-handling behavior. Every word contributes useful information, making it appropriately concise given the simplicity of the two-parameter schema.

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 output schema covers return values, so that is not a major gap. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description should provide more operational context. It omits when to use this tool over migrate_skill, whether to_store must be pre-created, and what happens on conflict or partial migration, making the overall call context incomplete.

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 mention from_store or to_store at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory as source and destination, but no format, valid store identifiers, prerequisites, or expected relationship between stores is provided, so the description 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 uses a specific verb ('Migrate') with a clear resource ('each skill'), and adds scope by saying it iterates over each skill. It is reasonably distinguishable from the sibling migrate_skill through the plural 'each skill', though it does not explicitly name the sibling or say 'all skills in from_store'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use migrate_store instead of migrate_skill, write_skill, or other store-related tools. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and parameters, leaving the agent to infer the difference between migrating a single skill and migrating every skill.

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