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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining side effects (changing every usage site), automatic re-spelling behavior, refusal conditions, collisions, recursive containment, and semantic ID constraints. No contradictions with annotations.

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 description is information-dense but every sentence adds operational value: purpose, prerequisites, side effects, refusal conditions, and related tool requirements. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, failure modes, related publishing requirements, and points to documentation. The output schema fills any remaining return-value expectations, making this complete.

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 parameters are already documented. The description still adds meaning by explaining the destination semantics and the implications of moving into $defs.X, though it does not detail the path format beyond the schema's example.

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 one property') with precise destination options ('root, an object path or $defs.X') and key semantics ('preserving its flags and expertise'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_schema_property and update_schema_property.

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 explicit operational guidance: requires editor, no LLM call, read source and destination with get_schema_part first, and publish_schema for database-linked schemas. It also covers when the move is refused, which is strong usage context beyond simple alternatives.

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