plan_migrate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses upsert behavior and internal chunking, but omits critical details: what happens on failure (file not found, missing service), whether mode affects behavior differently, or if the tool is safe to re-run. Limited transparency for a write operation.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and then state prerequisites and internal behavior. No unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover error states, return values, or detailed parameter semantics. Missing guidance on how mode or dry_run affect operation, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters described). Description adds context about upsert and chunking but doesn't clarify the purpose of mode or dry_run parameters. Does not compensate adequately for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool migrates a local markdown file into Notion plan bank, specifying verb 'Migrate' and resources (local file, Notion plan bank). It distinguishes from siblings like plan_upsert by emphasizing the file-based input and internal chunking.

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?

Mentions prerequisite (plan_configure + NOTION_TOKEN) and notes that chunking is handled internally, providing some guidance. However, lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like plan_upsert or plan_sync, and no when-not-to scenarios.

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