bubble_migration_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it produces an 'ordered' plan with specific step types (add_field, create_type, remove_field), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and purpose, then lists the outputs. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description explains the core function and the nature of the output (ordered plan with step types), which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity. No gaps in required context.

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 100% description coverage for tdd_path, so the schema already documents the parameter meaning. The description adds only a minor contextual hint ('target TDD file'), which is not enough to move beyond the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('ordered migration plan'), clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on comparing a TDD file to live schema, and lists concrete output types (add_field, create_type, remove_field).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when comparing a target TDD file against the live Bubble.io schema to generate migration steps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to differentiate.

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