reconcile_migration

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the algorithm (count check, record matching, field-level diff with transform awareness), explains how transform rules prevent false mismatches, and describes return values (verdict, per-record diffs, accuracy %). This is comprehensive.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, numbered steps, and bullet points. Every sentence adds value. No unnecessary text. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 5 required, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, return values, algorithm steps, and parameter roles. Missing details like error handling are acceptable for a tool of this nature.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters like transform_rules and date_fields are used in the algorithm (e.g., transform-awareness prevents false mismatches). This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which are already clear.

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 clearly states the tool performs a deep comparison between source and target records to verify migration success, listing four specific steps (count check, record matching, field-level diff, verdict). It distinguishes itself from simpler fill-rate checks, making its purpose highly specific.

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 description explicitly says 'Use after a test migration or a full migration to confirm data integrity.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. However, the sibling tool set includes verify_migration_counts, which implies a simpler alternative.

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