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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, destructive mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: text, scores, and history are preserved, while topic-level scores change going forward. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core operation and the key preservation/score behavior are 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect of the move and what remains unchanged. It leaves minor gaps around reversibility and failure modes, but nothing critical for invocation.

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 prompt_id and topic_id parameters are already documented. The description confirms the conceptual roles of prompt and target topic but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: move a prompt to another topic. It also adds the important scope constraint that the target must be in the same domain, which is enough to distinguish this from general prompt updates or topic updates.

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?

The use case is implied clearly by the operation itself, and the same-domain constraint is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of update-prompt-topic or other prompt/topic management tools.

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