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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect not captured anywhere else: marking an action done starts Kliqo's 14-day before/after measurement. It also adds a human-confirmation prerequisite and the role gate required to invoke it, which is exactly the context an agent needs for a destructive, idempotent write.

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?

Four short sentences with the state transition first, the irreversible-ish side effect second, and the preconditions last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description supplies the remaining essentials: permissions, confirmation policy, and the measurement side effect. Only the action_id semantics are left unexplained, which is a minor gap for an obvious UUID identifier.

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 only 33% (only 'project' is documented), so the description must carry weight. It does map the status enum to readable states, which adds meaning over the raw enum values, but it says nothing about action_id's role or how 'project' scoping interacts with the action lookup.

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 and resource ('Move a Kliqo action to ...') and enumerates every reachable status, including the non-obvious 'suggested' fallback. An agent can instantly separate this mutation from the read-only get_actions sibling.

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 clear operating conditions: confirm with the member before calling, and the operation is limited to editors, admins and owners. It does not name alternatives (e.g. get_actions for reading state) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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