Validate Migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state whether validation mutates anything, whether it is idempotent, what it validates against, or what a failed validation implies. The presence of an output schema softens the return-value gap, but the behavioral profile of the tool remains opaque.

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 description is a single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, the brevity here is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — there is barely any content to be concise about.

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 tool embedded in a dense migration workflow with no annotations, the description is not sufficient to call it correctly. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks any basis for knowing what this validates or when it fits the migration sequence.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning at all about migration_id — no format, no source of the ID, no example. Since the schema does not compensate, the description should have, and it does not.

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?

"Validate migration configuration" names a verb and a resource, so the basic purpose is legible, but it is essentially a restatement of the title with no added specificity. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling run_migration_test, nor does it say what aspect of the configuration is checked.

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 guidance on when to call this versus run_migration_test, generate_migration_yaml, or rollback_migration, all of which sit in the same migration workflow. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight check step rather than getting an explicit precondition.

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