migrate_diagram

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the output format (migrated source plus diff) and the version constraint, providing supplementary behavioral information beyond the structured fields.

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 concise (about 3 sentences) and well-structured: starts with purpose, then details input/output, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 (single parameter, good annotations, no output schema), the description fully explains the input, output, version context, and when to use it. No gaps are apparent.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the input must be a single full diagram (including first-line chart type) and not a multi-block file. This clarifies constraints that the schema alone does not convey.

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 the tool's purpose: migrating legacy DGMO content (pre-0.18.0) to a unified grammar. It specifies the input format (`.dgmo` file or fenced block) and output (migrated source plus diff), distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_diagram or render_diagram.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you encounter a `.dgmo` file authored against 0.17.x that emits `E_PIPE_OPERATOR_REMOVED` diagnostics.' This clearly states when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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