migrate_company_data

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the safe-by-default dry run, the exact mutation performed under apply=True (renames known columns, fills start_date/status defaults), that unknown columns like performance_score are preserved, and that a timestamped backup is written first. This is precisely the non-destructive/reversibility context an agent needs before a data migration.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the safety default, then the concrete effects of apply=True. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; no filler.

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 described, and the input side is fully covered. The remaining gap is relational: nothing says how this tool relates to plan_company_data_migration/apply_company_data_migration or what preconditions (file existence, schema version) must hold.

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% and the sole parameter's schema entry is just a title and default, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining both values of apply (false = dry run, true = perform the rename/fill/write). Nothing about the parameter's semantics is left ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Convert an existing employees.csv to the current column schema.' That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the CRUD siblings, but it never addresses the two very similarly named siblings plan_company_data_migration and apply_company_data_migration, so an agent still has to guess at the boundary between them.

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?

It clearly explains the operating mode: 'Runs as a dry run by default. With apply=True it renames...' which tells the agent exactly when the mutation actually happens. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to prefer plan_company_data_migration first), so there is context but no exclusions.

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