apply_company_data_migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call runs as a dry run unless apply=True and that each changed file is backed up first. It omits permission requirements, reversibility, and how unmapped/untouched fields are treated, so it falls short of full behavioral coverage.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the write action followed by input contract and then safety behavior. No filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the write action, input contract, dry-run default, and backup behavior. Remaining gaps are peripheral: which files/workspace are targeted and prerequisites beyond having run the plan tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the keying convention for 'answers' (keyed by the plan item's key, e.g. 'company_profile.json:mission'), the sentinel semantics of true, and the effect of 'apply' (dry run vs. write). It does not describe the accepted value types beyond the true-sentinel rule.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Write a confirmed company_profile.json and financials.json mapping') and positions itself relative to the sibling that produces its inputs (plan_company_data_migration). An agent can distinguish this from plan_company_data_migration and migrate_company_data without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: answers must correspond to open items reported by plan_company_data_migration, keyed by that item's key. It does not explicitly say 'call plan first' or exclude alternatives like migrate_company_data, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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