generate_cutover_checklist

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is an ordered checklist based on entity dependencies and lists included categories. However, it does not mention return format, side effects, permissions, or error conditions. With an output schema existing, the description adds moderate context but not full transparency.

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 concise at 5 sentences, with a clear structure: purpose statement, bullet-like list of contents, and a closing sentence. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though the bullet list could be more compact.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it does not mention prerequisites, typical usage scenarios beyond go-live, or how the checklist order is determined. The description is adequate but incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations.

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 57%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the entities parameter is for (e.g., 'Entities to include') and implies the categories of output, but it does not detail all parameters (e.g., language, auth fields). The description adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate 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 clearly states 'Generate a cutover checklist for migrating configuration from DEV to PROD' with specific verb and resource. It lists the types of objects included (Foundation Objects, Picklists, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_migration_sequence or generate_rule_doc.

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 use for go-live planning with 'Essential for go-live planning', but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. Sibling tools exist (e.g., generate_migration_sequence) that could overlap, but no guidance is given.

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