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

Annotations only say destructive/idempotent-false; the description goes far beyond by disclosing what follows the cluster (DNS zones, incidents, AI tickets), the notification-route behaviour and its reported outcome, and how project-scoped member access changes. This is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs before a destructive move.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action and its scope lead, followed by permission, side effects, refusals and the confirmation rule. A few clauses are packed into long semicolon-linked sentences, but essentially nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent cross-project move with no output schema, the description covers permission requirements, refusal cases, side effects, member-access impact and the confirmation workflow. Nothing an agent must know to call it safely is missing.

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 documents cluster_id/cluster_name as optional-when-selected, so the description adds little parameter detail. Its only additive pointer is that project_id comes from list_projects, which does not justify going above the baseline.

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 (move), resource (cluster) and scope (into another project of the same organisation), which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like move_cluster_to_organisation and move_application_to_project. The CLI twin reference reinforces exact intent.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (projects.manage), explicit refusal conditions (operation running, cluster already in target project), and a routing instruction to list_projects for the destination id. It also mandates user confirmation before invoking, which is actionable usage guidance.

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