migration_exchange

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without revealing whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or has rate limits. It does not mention error handling or side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about safety.

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 one sentence, front-loading the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it slightly too terse for optimal utility.

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 tool has an output schema, which helps, but the description fails to explain essential context like the type of IDs involved, required permissions, or example usage. The description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional information.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It adequately explains the parameters but does not enhance understanding.

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 verb 'exchange' and the resources 'legacy ID' and 'new ID', indicating a bidirectional mapping. It distinguishes itself from other exchange tools like oauth_v2_exchange by focusing on legacy IDs, but it does not explicitly specify the type of ID (e.g., user IDs) or the domain context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, such as required token scopes or scenarios where this exchange is needed. The sibling list includes similar exchange functions, but the description does not differentiate usage.

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