Upgrade to a Fidacy account

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive) already provide a safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'Returns a link to open' and notes 'your anonymous usage is preserved and migrated to the new account'. This goes beyond the structured annotations to explain the outcome and state preservation, with no contradiction.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information (upgrade target, benefits, return link, migration behavior). No wasted words.

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 the simplicity (0 params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the migration behavior, so an agent can invoke it correctly without further missing context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate—the description appropriately avoids any irrelevant param details.

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 'Start upgrading this local install to a real Fidacy account', specifying the verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning the unique purpose of migrating a local install to a server-backed account, which none of the sibling tools address.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Start upgrading this local install to a real Fidacy account') and explains what the tool does. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but given the distinct nature of the tool among siblings, the usage context is sufficient.

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