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

The description discloses the organizational constraint and role requirement, but with no annotations, it should reveal more behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens to the subtask's position or nested items, or any side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core operation and immediately adds constraints. 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by mentioning typical results, error conditions, or confirmation of success. It covers the essential constraints but leaves out what the agent should expect after 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 coverage is 100%, fulfilling the baseline of 3. The description adds value by stating the Manager role requirement, which is not in the schema, and reinforces the organization constraint. However, it does not provide additional detail on idempotency_key beyond the schema's built-in explanation.

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 clearly states the verb 'move', the resource 'subtask', and the destination 'different task'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'move_task' and 'update_subtask' by specifying the exact operation and constraints (must belong to organization, Manager role required).

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 description implies usage when a subtask needs to be reassigned to a different task, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'update_subtask' (which might also change the parent task). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use this tool is provided.

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