Migrate to Carve

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing that conversion produces 'fidelity diagnostics', which tells the agent to expect quality/compatibility feedback beyond the converted output. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 entire description is one front-loaded, information-dense sentence. Every phrase earns its place: the migration action, the supported formats, the target, and the diagnostics behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter tool with read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema it does not clarify what the result looks like beyond 'fidelity diagnostics'. It also does not mention edge cases, formatting details, or whether output is returned as text or a structured object. A bit more return-shape context would help.

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 50%: 'source' has a description with size limits, and 'format' has an enum but no description. The description restates the format options in prose but does not add new parameter meaning, such as format detection, normalization behavior, or how source content is interpreted. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 names a specific action ('Migrate'), a clear resource ('HTML, Markdown, or Djot source'), and a target format ('Carve'). It also adds a distinctive behavioral detail ('with fidelity diagnostics') that separates it from obvious siblings like carve_parse or carve_render.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have HTML, Markdown, or Djot source and want to convert it to Carve. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the migration-focused wording sufficiently distinguishes it from lint, format, render, and parse.

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