Migrate HA resource

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only 'live HA-managed migration', implying non-disruptiveness but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the resource on the source node. It adds minimal value 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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. However, it is overly minimal; a sentence of this length could be expanded with additional context without becoming verbose. It earns its place but fails to deliver sufficient information.

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 complexity of HA migration, the absence of an output schema, and the rich set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain success criteria, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, or impact on the HA group. The tool appears in a large list of sibling tools, and better context for selection is needed.

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 input schema has three parameters (sid, target, force) with only 33% description coverage (only 'target' has a description: 'Target node'). The tool description does not explain what 'sid' represents (likely the resource ID) or the effect of the 'force' boolean. Without this, the agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 action ('trigger a live HA-managed migration'), the resource type ('a resource'), and the destination ('another node'). It uses a specific verb and resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling migration tools like migrate_container or migrate_vm, relying on the 'HA-managed' qualifier to imply 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., migrate_container, migrate_vm). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the resource being part of an HA group, or conditions under which migration should be triggered.

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