vk_post_migratio_4be575987d38

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states authentication is required and migration scope, but it directly contradicts the schema: the description says the body is an optional JSON request payload, while the schema marks body as required and describes it as the auth token. This inconsistency is misleading. It also mentions path/query parameters that do not appear in the schema, adding confusion.

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 relatively short but repeats the migration scope twice ('Migrate all projects, tasks etc.' and 'Migrates all projects, tasks, notes, reminders, subtasks and files'). It is front-loaded but has redundancy and no clear structure separating purpose, usage, and parameter instructions.

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?

For a migration tool with no output schema, the description should explain what happens on success, error behavior, or return values. It does not. The internal contradictions about the body parameter further reduce completeness, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema describes the body parameter as 'The auth token previously obtained from the auth url', while the tool description says to pass the JSON request payload in the body. This contradiction leaves the agent unsure what to provide. The extra notes about aliases and top-level fields conflict with additionalProperties=false and only one body property. Despite 100% schema coverage, the semantics are actively misleading.

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 migrates all projects, tasks, notes, reminders, subtasks, and files from Trello to Vikunja, with a specific verb and resource. It also names the raw REST endpoint (POST /migration/trello/migrate), distinguishing it from sibling migration tools.

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 makes it clear this tool is for Trello migrations, and mentions authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, though the context is clear enough for an agent.

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