Generate a migration guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds clarity by stating it 'analyzes API contract compatibility only' and 'does NOT modify code', which reinforces the non-destructive nature and provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the key purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and constraints.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description conveys that the output is a markdown guide and safe rollout steps. It also clarifies the scope (API contract compatibility only). This is sufficient for a tool with moderate complexity. A higher score would require more detail on parameter relationships or output structure.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; it does not explain when to use file paths versus inline content. The language enum is mentioned but not elaborated. The description adds marginal value over 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 that the tool generates a migration guide (markdown) and safe rollout steps for breaking changes in an API spec change. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_specs or explain_breaking_changes by specifying the output format and the focus on safe rollout steps.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.

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