seo_import_migrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the import overwrites or merges existing settings, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is reversible, or what 'GLOBAL' scope implies. For a migration tool that likely mutates configuration, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 nested-object migration payload with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain payload expectations, migration semantics, or side effects. An agent cannot confidently call this correctly against the crowded import-tool sibling set.

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 100%, so both 'site' and 'data' are documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter detail (no payload shape, no site-id sourcing beyond what the schema's 'see list_sites' already says), so it does not exceed that baseline.

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?

States a verb-resource pairing ('Run a migration import ... into cvrt-seo-manager') and gives one concrete example source (RankMath GLOBAL settings). However 'migration import' remains vague, and it does nothing to separate itself from the many sibling import tools (seo_import_settings, seo_import_csv, seo_import_redirects), leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

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?

A single example ('e.g. from RankMath GLOBAL settings') hints at one context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the sibling import tools. The agent has no guidance for choosing between this and seo_import_settings or seo_import_csv.

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