db_start_migration

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the return value, but does not disclose that migration is likely an asynchronous, long-running operation requiring status checks, nor does it mention any risks such as data overwriting or required permissions. It is not misleading, but it omits meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a clean Args list and a Returns line. Every sentence adds direct value, and the format is standard and easily parsed. No fluff, repetition, or excess text exists.

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 all required parameters and the immediate return, but it misses important operational context for a migration tool: that the migration is asynchronous, that progress can be tracked via db_get_migration_status, and that stopping via db_stop_migration may be needed. Given the complexity of migrations, these omissions leave an agent without enough guidance to handle the full workflow correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining every parameter: database_id as destination, host/port/username/password/database as source credentials, and ssl as the SSL toggle. Each parameter receives a clear one-line meaning that matches the schema names exactly.

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 verb phrase, "Start migrating data from an external database," which clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like db_stop_migration or db_get_migration_status. The resource (external database migration) and action (start) are both explicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related operations like db_get_migration_status for monitoring or db_stop_migration for canceling, nor any prerequisites such as an existing destination database. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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