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

The description discloses that this is a write operation ('WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly'), which complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It also reveals that every move is a chained identity event and that illegal moves are refused by name, adding behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 but every sentence earns its place: access control, destination semantics, required fields, failure behavior, and write-safety warning. It is front-loaded with the most important constraint (sponsor or maintainer only) and uses compact formatting.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: who can call it, what each transition requires, and that it is not idempotent. It does not document the return value or error format, but the 'illegal moves are refused by name' note partially covers failure behavior.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'to' values, when voting_closes_at is required, what proposal_id means for sponsor-selected vs vote-selected grants, what evidence must be (one https URL), and what reason is for. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 ('move') and resource ('a grant'), enumerates all six target states, and names the required extra fields per state. It clearly distinguishes this from grant_propose and other grant-related siblings by focusing on state transitions.

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?

It explicitly says 'Sponsor or maintainer only', lists the valid destinations, and notes that illegal moves are refused by name. This gives an agent clear conditions for when to call it and what to check before invoking.

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