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

Annotations declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds far more: exactly which entities follow the cluster, which are detached, and which stay behind (billing, audit, chat). It also discloses the confirm_name guardrail and all refusal conditions. It is a model of behavioral disclosure, with the only minor gap being no mention of post-move return/confirmation behavior.

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-loaded with the action and every clause carries substantive information about movement/detachment/refusals, so nothing is filler. It is a single dense paragraph rather than segmented, and the guardrail is stated in both the description and the schema, but for an operation this complex the length 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden fully: authorization, side effects, data that follows vs stays, refusal conditions, and the confirmation guardrail. An agent has everything needed to decide and safely invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the semantics of the guardrail (confirm_name must equal the cluster name exactly) and the constraint on destination_organisation (must be one of the caller's orgs, other than the current one).

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: moving a cluster into another EXISTING organisation the caller belongs to. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like import_cluster, create_*_cluster, or list_clusters, and even constrains which clusters qualify.

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 states explicit prerequisites (admin of both source and destination orgs), the only-imported-clusters rule, and a long list of when-not conditions (running operations, cluster mesh, bound DNS zones, playground/sandbox, name collision). It also instructs the agent to obtain user confirmation before invoking.

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