run_test_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: sends sample records, checks three layers (source, staging, target), calculates fill rates, and flags data loss. It mentions default sample size. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness (though implied) or describe return format.

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 concise yet informative, using a clear structure: opening sentence, bullet-like list of report layers, and concluding usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, process, output details (three layers, fill rates, flags), and prerequisites. Missing is the exact return format (e.g., data structure) since no output schema exists, but it adequately sets expectations for a migration test report.

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 57%, with some parameters undocumented. The description adds context for sample_size (default 5, recommended 5–10) and explains the three-layer report, but does not elaborate on other parameters like filter or staging_table. It adds modest value beyond the 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 the tool performs a trial run of the migration pipeline on a small sample and produces a detailed quality report. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_full_migration by emphasizing the trial nature.

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?

Explicit instructions are given: 'Only call this after build_artifacts' and 'Only call run_full_migration after the user reviews this report and explicitly says Approved.' This clearly delineates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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