start_migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions automatic detection and a comprehensive audit, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, if it writes files, if it is blocking, or if it requires prior configuration. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds auto-detection and audit scope. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers the main action and auto-detection, but it does not describe the output or return value. With no output schema, the agent is left wondering what happens after starting the migration. The presence of sibling tools like get_migration_summary suggests follow-up actions, but these are not referenced.

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 has 100% description coverage. The description adds value by explaining the override behavior for sourcePath, targetPath, and configPath, and the optional nature of module, thus providing context beyond the schema alone.

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 starts a full Nuxt 2 to Nuxt 3/4 migration process. It specifies the versions and mentions a comprehensive audit of the codebase, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific audit or generation tasks.

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 usage to start the migration and mentions automatic detection of the source path, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like configure_migration or get_migration_summary. It provides clear context for when it should be invoked.

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