Generate Module Migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this writes files to disk, where they are written, whether existing files are overwritten, or what permissions/setup are required — critical for a code-generation/mutation tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from omission rather than disciplined editing.

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 described, but for a 4-parameter file-generating tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. Neither parameter meaning nor write-behavior nor side effects are covered.

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% and none of the four parameters (module_name, source_version, target_version, base_path) are explained in the description. Terms like 'source plugin' and 'migration template' gesture at concepts but do not tell the agent what values the required version parameters expect or how base_path is used.

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 (Generate) and resource (migration module) and enumerates the artifacts produced: source plugin, process plugins, migration template. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as generate_migration_yaml or ai_generate_migration_plan, which an agent could easily confuse for the same task.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the custom module must already exist), and no mention of alternatives despite many migration-related siblings in the list. The agent must infer applicability entirely on its own.

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