aism_migration_transfer_package

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: names required permissions on both sides (migration:read on source, plugins:write/themes:write on target), discloses that installs land inactive unless activate=true, that parent themes are transferred first, and that older installed versions get updated from the source ZIP. 'Adds executable code' reinforces the destructiveHint. Not fully closed: nothing about partial-failure state or overwrite behavior when versions match.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the inactive-by-default caveat, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (file source, theme dependency, update behavior, permissions, code risk). Dense but no sentence is redundant; the final safety note is terse rather than integrated.

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 destructive, permission-gated migration write with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, default state, dependency ordering, and risk. Only the return/outcome and retry semantics are absent, which are minor given the annotation coverage of destructiveness.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates for the most ambiguous field: the from enum's source-vs-wordpress.org semantics, which the schema leaves undocumented. It also explains activate's effect on the result. type and id are left to the schema, which describes id adequately.

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 ('Install a plugin or theme') with the exact scope ('from the source on the target'), which distinguishes it from the plain aism_plugin_install / aism_theme_install siblings. An agent can tell this is the cross-site migration installer without opening the 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?

Explains the key selection decision between from=source (exact installed files, custom/premium code) and from=wordpress.org (installs by slug), plus the activate flag default and that missing parent themes are pulled in first. It never explicitly says when to prefer this over the sibling install tools, so a small inference remains.

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