migrate_channel_axis

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, which is minimal. The description compensates fully by disclosing that the operation is non-destructive (only the channel column changes), idempotent (re-running is a no-op), that dry_run avoids mutation, and that globalize_unrecoverable moves unmatched rows to the global channel. It also explains the unrecoverable bucket behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and long, but every clause contributes necessary operational detail: the transformation rule, the session_id format, non-destructiveness, idempotency, dry_run behavior, and the globalize option. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A more structured list might improve readability, but the content is warranted.

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 migration tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what gets rewritten, the exact session_id format, default behavior, the unrecoverable case, and the optional globalize behavior. An agent can correctly decide whether to call this tool and how to set the parameters without additional information.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what dry_run=true reports (recoverable count, channels, unrecoverable bucket) and what globalize_unrecoverable does to the unrecoverable bucket. This goes beyond the simple boolean descriptions in the 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 action: 'Re-channel bridge-type memories to their concrete channel', naming the resource (bridge-type memories) and the transformation (rewriting channel from session_id). It clearly distinguishes this migration utility from the sibling memory tools, which operate on individual memories or recall rather than performing a schema migration.

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?

The description gives clear operational guidance: dry_run=true is the default and reports without mutating, while globalize_unrecoverable=true is an opt-in escalation. It also clarifies idempotency and non-destructive behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but there is no obvious sibling alternative for this migration, and the flag semantics effectively tell the agent when to use which mode.

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