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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: all-or-nothing semantics, failure-before-write ordering, idempotency with a `skipped` count, destination ordering, the emitted `row.moved_surface` event, and the 500-row cap. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit guidance, which keeps it from 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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by use cases and then guarantees (atomicity, idempotency, ordering, events, limit). Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by noting the `skipped` return count and the per-row event. For a batch mutation tool this is nearly complete, though it stops short of spelling out the success return shape or required permissions.

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 slug, rowIds, and target_surface_slug are already documented (including both slug forms and the 400 on invalid surfaces), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the atomicity condition tied to rowId workspace membership, which is marginal beyond what the schema conveys.

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 N rows from their current sheet(s) to a target sheet') with the workspace scope made explicit. Combined with the migration/reorganization use cases, an agent can tell this apart from update_row or bulk_update_rows, which modify rows in place rather than relocating them.

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 concrete usage context ('programmatic data migration', 'dropping a batch of agent-produced drafts', 'reorganizing content across LinkedIn / Twitter / Substack sheets'). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases (e.g., versus bulk_update_rows or update_surface), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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