Migrate a project's agent config

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that the default is a dry run returning a plan, that files are only touched when write=true, that existing files are skipped unless overwrite=true, and that Gemini settings.json is merged rather than replaced. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a potentially destructive call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety-critical default. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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-by-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety contract and the merge edge case. Remaining gaps are the unexplained link/source semantics and no signal about what the returned plan looks like.

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 33%, yet the description explains write and overwrite thoroughly and flags the merge exception. However, the 'link' parameter (none/symlink/import) and 'from' source selection get no explanation in either schema or description, leaving real gaps.

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: generate target-tool config files from the project's existing instructions and MCP config. That is clearly a whole-project migration, distinct from the narrower feel of convert_rules or convert_mcp_config, but the description never names those siblings to confirm the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the dry-run-by-default framing (call it to preview a migration), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance despite three plausible sibling tools. The write/overwrite conditions describe safe invocation rather than tool selection.

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