migration_test_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a read-only report generation (returns verdict, no mention of data modification). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or detailed behavior when inputs are invalid.

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?

Description is two paragraphs: first states purpose and scope, second gives usage and output. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Well structured and front-loaded.

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 9 parameters, 7 required, and no output schema, the description covers overall process and output. It mentions combining validate tool with reconciliation and returning pass/fail verdict. Could specify what 'deep reconciliation' entails, but adequate for its purpose.

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 78%, so many parameters have descriptions. Description adds context like 'three-layer field mapping' but does not elaborate on less-documented parameters (transform_rules, date_fields). Overall, parameter meanings are clear from names and schema.

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 'Generate a complete end-to-end migration test report' covering three layers. It specifies the tool combines existing validate tool with deep reconciliation. The purpose is distinct from siblings like pre_migration_check or run_full_migration.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use this after a test migration of 5–50 records before running the full migration.' This provides clear context. It implies this tool is for intermediate validation, though it does not list when not to use.

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