Run Migration Wave

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that source credentials can live in the plan's 'source' block, but says nothing about what the migration changes in the target, whether it is idempotent, how batching behaves, or what happens on partial failure — significant gaps for a write/migration operation.

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?

Front-loads the action, then adds the credential detail in a compact second paragraph. Backtick-wrapped parameter names make it slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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 covers return values, so that is not a gap. But with 9 parameters at 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the description is far too thin for a migration tool: it omits dry_run behavior, batching, TLS verification, and field mapping, all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description explains only source_username/source_password semantics (and their plan-block alternative). The other seven parameters — dry_run, batch_size, verify_tls, migration_id, source_token, field_mapping, resource_type — receive no explanation anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Fetch and migrate one resource type from the plan's source site into the target site.' The 'one resource type' scoping is meaningful. However, it doesn't discriminate itself from close siblings like run_migration or migrate_records, leaving the agent to infer the difference between a 'wave' and a full run.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the auth paragraph hints the tool is one wave within a plan, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative among the many migration siblings (run_migration, migrate_records, run_migration_test). The conditions that select this tool are left to inference.

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