execute_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: dry-run by default (safe preview), snapshot creation before execution, and post-execution validation (no broken refs/circular deps). It also implies rollback capability. Missing details like authentication or rate limits are acceptable given the 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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then specifying the safety default. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the tool's purpose and scope, second provides critical usage instruction. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, safety behavior, and validation. However, it does not describe the return value or result format, which would help the agent understand what to expect. The absence is minor given the clarity of the overall process.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new information about parameter semantics that isn't already in the schema. It mentions 'dry run' and 'snapshot' but those are already documented in the schema. The description does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond 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 'Execute token migration' and enumerates specific actions (reference updates, validation, rollback). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'transform_tokens' by emphasizing the migration process with safety defaults and snapshot creation. The verb 'execute' combined with the resource 'migration' provides a specific action-resource pair.

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 explicitly warns about the default dry-run mode for safety and instructs how to apply changes by setting dryRun:false. It mentions creating a snapshot for rollback, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transform_tokens' or 'generate_refactor_scenarios'.

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