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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the 409 failure mode, the exact blocking conditions (store mapping or existing orders), and the required fallback path. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 action, scope, and failure/fallback path are front-loaded and dense with useful constraints. A stray artifact ('[#f36e77]') at the end is noise and slightly detracts.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: destination uuid sourcing, source_workspace defaulting, the 409 precondition, and the alternative operation. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the source_workspace default caveat and destination uuid source. The description reinforces but adds little beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('Move a product to another workspace') and scopes it to agency accounts. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from check_product_move and copy_product_to_workspace by naming them as the check/fallback tools.

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 covers when this will fail ('409 if mapped to a store or has orders'), what to do instead ('copy it'), and the prerequisite check ('check first with check_product_move'). It also tells the agent to use list_my_workspaces for the uuid and when to pass source_workspace.

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