migration_validatePlan

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

Compensates well for absent annotations by disclosing return contents ('typed errors, sampled-validation flag') and validation scope ('timers, external tasks, cancellations'). However, does not explicitly state whether operation is read-only or has side effects.

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?

Single dense sentence efficiently packs purpose, return values, and behavioral scope. Every clause earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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?

Despite missing output schema, description adequately details return structure and validation consequences. Covers sufficient complexity for a validation tool, though could explicitly clarify it does not modify state.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (confirmed by context signals). Description correctly omits parameter discussion. Baseline 4 applies as per zero-parameter rule.

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?

Description states specific verb ('Validate'), resource ('migration plan'), and scope ('against a set of process instances'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like migration_generatePlan and migration_executeBatch by focusing on validation rather than creation or execution.

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?

Implies usage context (checking a plan before execution) by mentioning validation and consequence disclosure, but lacks explicit workflow guidance such as 'use this after generatePlan and before executeBatch' or prerequisites.

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