sophos_start_migration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false (write operation) and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it generates a token, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose potential prerequisites (e.g., endpoints must be in a valid state) or side effects beyond token generation.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 explains the token generation and linking to acceptance. However, it lacks details about the response structure (the token) and any prerequisites. Given no output schema, describing the return value explicitly would improve completeness.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying 'from_tenant' is usually the same as 'tenant_id' and that 'endpoint_ids' are comma-separated UUIDs, which is helpful 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 starts an endpoint migration job and generates a token. It explicitly references the sibling tool 'sophos_accept_migration', distinguishing this tool's role in the two-step process. The verb 'start' with resource 'migration job' is 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 explains when to use this tool (on the sending tenant to initiate migration) and links to the acceptance step. It implies usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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