audio_artifact_migrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses one trait (does not write files) but omits other important behaviors such as whether the input is mutated, what the return value is, validation steps, error handling, or permissions. This is insufficient for a migration tool that could have side effects on the input object.

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, tightly worded sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and includes the key behavioral constraint. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is significantly under-specified. It does not explain the migration process, expected input format, return value, or any constraints. An agent would lack sufficient information to call this tool correctly without further investigation.

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 schema provides zero description for the single 'artifact' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only labels it as a 'legacy calibration artifact' without specifying its structure, required fields, or format. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare object type.

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 states a specific action (Migrate), a clear resource (legacy calibration artifact), and a key outcome (to the current schema) with a distinguishing constraint (without writing files). It clearly differentiates from related tools like audio_artifact_validate or audio_artifact_create by specifying the migration intent.

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 implies the tool is for migrating legacy artifacts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions or preconditions. It mentions 'without writing files' but doesn't clarify when that behavior is desired or if there are alternative tools for actual file writes. Minimal guidance.

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