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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the image is re-saved as the new kind and swapped on the board, and that the old asset is deleted only if intake saved it within 24 hours and nothing references it, otherwise it remains in the library. It also explains the idempotent no-op and its 'unchanged' board return, adding real destruction and side-effect context on top of destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the side-effect conditions. Two sentences carry a lot of conditional detail, which is dense but every clause earns its place; only slight compression is possible.

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 destructive, nested-object mutation with no output schema, it covers the important unknowns: what is destroyed and when, that re-issuing is a no-op, and the 'unchanged' return. It stops short of covering permission/authorization needs or failure modes beyond the schema-described revision conflict.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the revision-conflict semantics of expected_revision. The description's mention of the three pile names merely restates the enum, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Shoot Board photo') and bounds it to three enumerated piles (Clothing, Models, Locations), which separates it from the generic modify_shoot_board sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 gives conditional behavior ('a move that already happened changes nothing') but never says when to prefer this over modify_shoot_board or show_in_shoot_board, nor what preconditions (e.g. an open board) are required. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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