aism_migration_copy

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, openWorld=true, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses what gets copied (dependencies), that IDs and URLs are remapped, and that re-copying updates prior copies. It stops short of warning about overwriting target content or what happens on a max_seconds timeout, which would be useful for a destructive tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core action and its scope are front-loaded, and the re-copy behavior is appended efficiently. Nothing is wasted.

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 10-parameter, destructive, open-world migration tool with no output schema, the description covers what is copied but says nothing about what the call returns, how partial failures or timeouts are surfaced, or how it relates to aism_migration_status/rollback. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a complex operation.

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 90%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's mention of categories/tags, featured images, embedded media, and reusable blocks loosely corresponds to include_dependencies and the remapping behavior, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a precise verb and resource ('Copy selected posts/pages (any type) from one site to another') plus the full scope of what travels with them: terms, featured images, embedded media, reusable blocks, and ID/URL remapping. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aism_migration_export, aism_migration_plan, and aism_migration_run, which do not describe this copy-with-remap action.

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 line 'Copying again updates the earlier copies' implies a re-run/iterative usage pattern, and the description gives a use case (moving content between sites). But it never says when to use this instead of aism_migration_plan, aism_migration_run, or aism_migration_transfer_package, so the agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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