Ai Generate Migration Plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about whether this is read-only or mutating, whether it writes files or config, whether it requires an AI/provider backend, cost or rate limits, or determinism. For a zero-annotation AI generation tool this is a complete gap.

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?

One sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here reflects the absence of content, not efficient structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but everything else is missing: parameter meaning, AI-backend dependency, mutation side effects, and routing among dozens of migration siblings. Inadequate for a 2-param generation tool with no annotations.

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. It mentions neither source_type nor target_version, gives no allowed values for source_type (e.g., D7 vs D9), and does not explain that target_version defaults to '10'. Both parameters are left semantically empty.

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 'Generate migration plan using AI' largely restates the tool name 'ai_generate_migration_plan'. It says what is produced (a migration plan) but not what it plans from or to, and does not distinguish it from related siblings like generate_migration_yaml, generate_module_migration, or map_fields_ai.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The vast migration family (analyze_d7_site, map_modules_d7_to_d10, generate_migration_yaml, run_migration_test, validate_migration) makes sibling differentiation essential, and none is provided.

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