run_full_migration

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: automatic dependency ordering for Jira, paginated bulk for Salesforce, and immediate error stop with reporting. It does not cover whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or auth requirements, but the core behaviors are disclosed.

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 five sentences, each serving a purpose: overall function, two platform-specific behaviors, prerequisite (checkpoint approval), and error handling. No fluff, well-structured.

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 complexity of a multistage full migration and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow (phases, platforms, error handling) and constraints (checkpoint approval). It could mention prerequisites like mapping configuration, but is largely complete for agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters (4 required) with 60% schema description coverage. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond implying 'platform' and 'object_name'. Without parameter detail, agents must rely on schema descriptions alone, which are incomplete for the remaining 2 parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Migrate ALL records from source to ServiceNow.' It specifies platform-specific behaviors (Jira dependency ordering, Salesforce paginated bulk) and distinguishes itself as a full migration phase (Phase 6) among siblings like run_test_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?

The description explicitly requires 'explicit user approval at Checkpoint 4' before calling, establishing a clear precondition. It also notes error handling ('Stops immediately on any error and reports'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., prefer run_test_migration for testing) or list alternatives.

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