mindbase_migrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that a snapshot is written to archive/<projectId>-<unixTs>/ before migration and that the operation is idempotent. This gives an agent a meaningful safety mental model for a mutation tool, even though it does not fully detail the transformation or failure behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences state the core action, scope, a key safety behavior (snapshotting), and idempotence. There is no filler, repeated schema content, or ambiguity introduced by unnecessary prose. Every sentence carries useful 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?

The description is complete enough for a simple invocation, but there are gaps: no explanation of what happens when 'all' and 'projectId' are both supplied, no description of the outcome/status of migration, and no post-conditions beyond idempotence. Because this is a migration tool without annotations or output schema, slightly more direction would improve context.

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 75%, so three of the four parameters are already explained by the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'one or all projects,' which partially helps explain the 'all' boolean. It does not add semantics for user, dryRun, or projectId beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to heavily compensate at 75% 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 states a specific verb ('Migrate'), a specific target ('projects'), and a clear transformation ('from legacy wiki/ layout to v2 layout'). It also communicates the scope parameter by saying 'one or all projects,' which distinguishes this migration operation from the surrounding read/write/wiki sibling tools.

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 intended usage is implied well: use this to convert legacy-layout projects to v2 layout. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisite conditions like 'must be in legacy layout' or 'run only after verification.' It is adequate but not clearly explanatory.

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