confirm_migration

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

Beyond the annotations, it mandates explicit user choice, forbids inferring gateChoice, forbids bypassing REVIEW_TARGET_CONFLICTS without discussion, and documents the omit-to-use-newest behavior for gateSelection. This is strong disclosure of the tool's decision-making and consent requirements.

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 dense but well ordered: purpose first, then workflow, parameter-specific rules, and a final guardrail. Every sentence carries an operational requirement, and none is wasted on boilerplate.

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 destructive confirmation gate with conditional behavior, the description covers prerequisites, exact pre-flight handling, default selection behavior, and a hard fail-safe rule. It references the relevant get_migration fields and relies on the detailed schema and output schema for the remainder, leaving no critical invocation gap.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the exact source of gateChoice and the USE_OFFICIAL_EXPORT semantics of gateSelection. The description mostly restates those rules in prose rather than adding new parameter-level detail.

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 opening sentence specifies two concrete modes: approving a migration after discovery and resolving a pre-flight migration-strategy gate. This makes the action unambiguous and distinguishes it from read-only or lifecycle siblings such as get_migration, resume_migration, and pause_migration.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition and workflow: get the migration, present the discovery inventory, and if preFlightGate is non-null present each action verbatim and pass the exact gateChoice. It does not explicitly name sibling-tool alternatives or when not to use them, but the conditional triggers are clear.

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