Create migration plan

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond this by explicitly stating 'Nothing is written to disk and no cluster is touched' and adds a critical behavioral rule: 'SHOW THIS PLAN TO THE USER before generating or deploying anything.' This is useful context not fully captured by 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 dense but efficient: the first sentence packs in the full plan contents, and the following two sentences deliver the critical behavioral constraints. It is a bit of a run-on, but every clause adds value and the most important instructions are front-loaded.

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?

The output side is well covered and the output schema exists, but input semantics are severely underdescribed. An agent invoking this tool may not know what 'path' should point to or how namespace/image_registry affect the plan. Because one parameter is required and schema coverage is 0%, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 carries the full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does not mention path, namespace, or image_registry at all, leaving the required 'path' parameter ambiguous and providing no meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and specific resource ('concrete, reviewable migration plan') and enumerates exactly what the plan contains. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_manifests and apply_manifests by explicitly stating this is done 'before generating or deploying anything'.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for producing a reviewable plan before any generation or deployment, and instructs the agent to show the plan to the user first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the sequencing directive is strong enough to guide selection.

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