generate_migration

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds two behavioral guardrails not present in the annotations: it requires explicit approval and refuses production-like targets. This is useful context, though file-system side effects are not detailed.

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 short sentences, with the core action first and the constraints immediately after. No wasted words; all content carries meaning.

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?

This is a 5-parameter operation with nested options and no output schema, but the description omits how to supply approval, what framework detection means for the `framework` parameter, and what 'blocks production-like targets' is based on. An agent has to infer the workflow and parameter requirements from the schema.

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 only 20%, so the description needed to carry parameter meaning. It only gestures at `approved` ('explicit approval') and `framework` ('detected framework'), leaving `name`, `options`, and repository path semantics to the schema. The `options` object is entirely unexplained.

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 opens with a specific action ('Generate') and a clear object ('a migration'), and identifies the mechanism ('detected framework'). This clearly differentiates it from read-only siblings like explain_migration or list_migration_status, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

It gives a safety prerequisite (explicit approval) and a restriction (blocks production-like targets), but it does not state when to prefer this tool over detect_migration_frameworks, explain_migration, or rollback guidance. The intended workflow—e.g., run detection first, then generate—is left implied.

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