Record Migration Result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a write-like action ('Record') but does not disclose required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens to existing records; most behavioral traits remain undocumented.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is undersized for a tool with six parameters and no supporting annotations. Conciseness here reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral details for a mutation-style tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. Significant gaps remain for correct invocation.

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% across six parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Required fields like migration_id, entity_type, and legacy_id are not explained, nor are optional fields status, error, or target_id, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record the outcome of a manually executed migration operation.' It distinguishes this from sibling migration tools implicitly by focusing on recording results rather than executing, validating, or rolling back migrations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify the scope of 'outcome.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated. The phrase 'manually executed migration operation' gives a faint contextual hint, but the agent is left to infer when this tool should be called versus migration_status, validate_migration, or other siblings.

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