Migrate Tailwind v3 classes to v4

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by flagging that scale renames like shadow-sm, rounded and blur changed meaning silently, which warns the agent the mapping is not a naive find-and-replace. It still omits how unknown or already-v4 classes are handled.

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 the core mapping behavior and followed by the porting context. The parenthetical enumerates the risky renames compactly without padding.

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 read-only mapping tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the result is (v3 to v4 equivalents) and when to use it. Missing only edge-case behavior such as unrecognized classes or how conflicts between mapped classes are resolved.

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% for both parameters, including a concrete candidate example and the project path default, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is already structured there; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: mapping v3 class names to v4 equivalents, with examples of the class families involved. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tailwind_canonicalize, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a class-rewriting tool.

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?

"Use this when porting v3 code to v4" gives a clear triggering context. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for adjacent tasks (e.g. canonicalize), so it stops short of a 5.

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