get_migration_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the return structure: {rationale, diff, breaking_changes[], estimated_minutes}, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences plus a structured 'RETURNS' line. Every sentence provides essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, and what output to expect. No redundancy, front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotence, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage examples, return fields. It lacks details on the exact structure of the diff or whether additional context (e.g., package versions) is needed, but it is largely sufficient.

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 describes 2 of 3 parameters (from_package, to_package), achieving 67% coverage. The description adds the context that packages must be 'DIFFERENT' (emphasized) and that 'both endpoints known'. This provides some additional meaning but does not fully compensate for the undocumented ecosystem parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a 'Prescriptive migration plan between DIFFERENT packages' and lists the outputs: rationale, code diff, breaking changes, and effort minutes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_breaking_changes and compare_packages by focusing on a full migration plan.

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 includes a 'USE WHEN' section with concrete examples (e.g., replacing request→axios) and mentions that both endpoints must be known. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to identify appropriate use cases.

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