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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the actual side effect: notes are retagged project:<id>, join that project's search scope, and are reused by later runs there. It also reassures that nothing is rerun or charged and names the refusal error, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and then layers constraints efficiently. The closing sentence about filing into the current project versus a different one partially repeats the schema's move description, but the redundancy is small and the whole passage stays dense and purposeful.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: preconditions, refusal mode, side effects on notes and search scope, and the move gate. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 semantic value by tying move to the cross-project scenario and framing it as the thing that changes whether the call succeeds. It also supplies a concrete example payload with both required ids.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('File a run you already started under a project') and anchors it to a familiar console action. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like start_run, rerun_from, and list_runs, which do different things to runs.

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 exactly which run states are filable (queued, done, failed, aborted) and which are refused (running, paused, blocked) with the error name run_not_filable, plus the timing advice 'file it when it finishes'. It also covers the when-not path: filing into the current project is a no-op, and a cross-project move requires move: true.

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