generate_migration_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the write side effect (MIGRATION.md), describes the produced checklist, mentions doc links, and notes a suggestion to add the Prefect MCP server. It does not explicitly address overwrites or file permissions, but the core behaviors are well covered.

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 dense but well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage positioning sentence, and organized Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the length is justified by the need to document five parameters and return fields.

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 (5 params, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, when to call it, parameter semantics, and return value shape. The presence of an output schema means the return format does not need further elaboration.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains every parameter, including the structure of the 'decisions' list and the meaning of 'manual_actions'. This fully bridges the gap left by the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write MIGRATION.md — human-readable record of a DAG conversion.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is the final step after generate_deployment and focuses on documentation/reporting rather than transformation or validation.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call as the final step after generate_deployment,' providing clear when-to-use context. It does not list exclusions or direct alternatives, but the pipeline positioning sufficiently clarifies its role relative to siblings.

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