migrate_drawing

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds real behavioral context: an exact-byte backup is created, appearance is preserved, and re-running on an already-v2 drawing is a revision-checked no-op. It is consistent with destructiveHint=false (backup + no-op) and readOnlyHint=false. It stops short of describing failure behavior on a revision mismatch.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. The safety-relevant clause (backup, unchanged appearance) appears before the no-op and opt-in details, which is appropriate ordering.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 25% schema coverage, a nested preview object, and no output schema, the description covers the headline behaviors but leaves gaps: name handling, expectedRevision mismatch consequences, and what the migration returns are all absent. Adequate but not complete.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate. It lights up includeSource and preview ('opt-in') and hints at expectedRevision via 'revision-checked', but gives no semantic detail for the required 'name' parameter (the schema description carries that) and no explanation of what a revision check failure means. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Upgrade v1 to v2', and adds the exact-byte backup and unchanged-appearance outcome. An agent can tell this is a format-migration tool. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like update_drawing, patch_drawing, or repair_drawing, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

'Already-v2 migration is a revision-checked no-op' and 'Source and preview are opt-in' imply when this tool is appropriate and how to toggle optional behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for cases where migration isn't the right operation.

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