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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the manage permission requirement, the side effect that connected pipeline repositories follow the application, and the refusal case when already in the target project. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information: scope, permission, side effects and refusal, and pre-confirmation. The CLI twin reference is somewhat extraneous for an agent but is front-loaded and short.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: required permission, follow-on repository behavior, refusal condition, and the confirmation workflow. Nothing essential to a correct call is absent given no output schema is expected.

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 100% and the schema already explains each parameter's source (list_projects / list_applications). The description reinforces the source tools, adding marginal but consistent value. It slightly exceeds the baseline 3 without introducing new semantic detail like UUID format, which is already 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move an application into another project of the same organisation') and distinguishes itself from the twin sibling move_cluster_to_project by naming the CLI equivalent. The scope constraint ('same organisation') is precise and distinguishes it from cross-org moves.

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?

Explicitly says to have the user confirm application and destination project first, and routes to list_projects and list_applications for id discovery. It doesn't explicitly contrast with move_cluster_to_project or explain when a move is the wrong operation (e.g., vs. create_application), but the sibling names make that inferable.

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