create_content_migration

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description discloses the mutation: 'requests the migration.' It adds the short-lived token behavior and the preview step, which are critical behavioral traits. It also notes the date-shifting constraint ('accepts either all four date fields or none'), which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't fully explain what 'target-occupancy preview' contains or the token expiry details.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with useful information. The preview/confirm distinction is front-loaded, the token flow is explained, and the date-shifting rule is stated. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description explains the two-call sequence, the token, and the date-shifting constraint—all essential for correct invocation. It could be slightly more explicit about what happens if date fields are partially filled (it says 'either all four or none' which implies rejection), and it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., user permissions), but given the complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 compensate. The description explains the purpose of confirmation_token (the short-lived token from the first call) and the date-shifting rule ('all four date fields or none'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare anyOf/null types. However, source_course_identifier and target_course_identifier are not explicitly distinguished in the description—though their names are self-explanatory.

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 two-phase action: 'Preview or confirm a full course-copy migration request.' It names the specific resource (course-copy migration) and the dual verb (preview/confirm), distinguishing it from sibling get_content_migration_status. It also explains the flow: first call returns a preview and token, second call with token confirms.

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 specifies when to make a second call: 'A second call with the token and identical arguments requests the migration.' It also hints at the preview-first pattern. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives beyond get_content_migration_status, but the two-phase flow is clearly described, which is sufficient guidance for correct usage.

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