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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: local x-mcp handling, no board-core route/404, per-key move_to_release checks, one 409 retry with fresh read, skipped semantics, permission requirements with 403 per issue, and release preconditions with whole-call 404/409 behavior. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is organized into mechanics, permissions, workflow, and results. However, it repeats the opening sentence nearly verbatim later and restates the one-by-one move behavior, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 complex bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, permissions, failure modes, result fields, and retry guidance. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful meaning for reason (kept in scope history and run-log), issue_keys (up to 50, epics children follow), and release_id (must exist and be planned), though it adds less for project_key.

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, resource, and scope: put up to 50 issues/epics into one planned release in one call, with per-issue results. It also distinguishes itself from move_to_release by emphasizing the bulk one-call behavior, so an agent can identify it as the batch wrapper.

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?

Provides an explicit workflow: find issues first with search_issues using filters such as release=none and status ids, then call this tool with the keys and one reason. It gives concrete examples, says to retry only failed keys, and tells callers to chunk when there are more than 50 issues.

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