starwind_migrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool has interactive and non-interactive modes, but omits critical details: what 'safe' means, whether it actually executes migration or just prints a command, what happens during overwrite (backup? destructive?), and any permission or side-effect notifications. Given the complexity of migration, this is insufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place. No fluff or redundancy. The structure efficiently communicates the core action and key behavioral choice.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description leaves major ambiguities: does the tool execute migration or just output a command? How does the packageManager parameter affect behavior? What is the interactive workflow? The description is too sparse for an agent to reliably invoke the tool, especially given the absence of annotations to provide safety cues.

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 67% (cwd and yes have descriptions, packageManager does not). The main description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. For packageManager, there is no description in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent unaware of its role. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 generates a migration command for a specific context ('Starwind UI v3 migration command for a legacy Astro project'). The verb 'generates' and resource 'migration command' are precise. The interactive vs. non-interactive nuance further clarifies behavior. This easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like starwind_init or starwind_add.

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 hints at usage context (legacy Astro projects) and default behavior (interactive), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention prerequisites or conditions. For example, it is unclear if starwind_migrate should be used over starwind_init for an existing project. The description provides some context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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