faf_migrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the tool modifies project.faf in place on the real filesystem, alerting the agent that this is a potentially destructive operation with real side effects. It could have added more detail (e.g., reversibility, failure modes), but the core risk is communicated clearly.

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 succinct and well-structured, with three short sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, warning about the real filesystem, and noting the in-place modification. There is no extraneous information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the command does, where it operates, and its side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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 documents the only parameter ('project') with a full description and default behavior. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific action: run `faf migrate` on a project directory to upgrade project.faf to the latest schema version. It names the target resource (project.faf) and the effect (schema upgrade), and differs from siblings like bash_exec, faf_sync, and faf_score with its focus on migrating schema.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when a schema migration is needed) and includes an important caveat that it operates on the real filesystem, bypassing the bash sandbox. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops just short of perfect guidance.

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