migration_trial_load_step

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: it targets the plan's Testmandant, uses the same code path as live commit, records row-level outcomes, and writes nothing to live books. It does not cover permissions or error behavior, but the core safety profile is well communicated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, and each sentence adds useful context. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 trial-load tool with no output schema, the description explains the core behavior and safety property but does not say what the tool returns or how row-level outcomes are surfaced. Combined with undocumented parameters, an agent has enough to attempt the call but not a complete picture.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It provides semantic hints for plan, step, target workspace, and an idempotency key, but it does not map these to the four named parameters or explain formats and constraints, leaving some inference required.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Trial-load a step' into the plan's Testmandant, and distinguishes it from live commit by saying it uses the same code path but a different target workspace. An agent can tell this is a trial-load operation that records outcomes without touching live books.

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 implies the tool is used to test a migration step safely before a live commit, and notes that it writes nothing to live books. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative such as migration_commit_step or migration_preview_step, nor does it state when-not to use this tool.

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