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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context: source preservation only applies to same-workspace moves, while cross-workspace relocation follows backend project rules. The phrase 'according to its normal project rules' is vague, leaving the exact cross-workspace consequence (e.g., whether assets are re-scoped or IDs change) undisclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then the data-preservation caveat. Mostly efficient, though the closing clause about 'normal project rules' is low-information filler for a destructive operation.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the prerequisite discovery calls, and the parameter-omission rule. The residual gap is the destructive consequence of cross-workspace movement, which is only gestured at rather than explained.

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 67%, with toFolderUid and toWorkspaceUid already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the omit-to-use-root rule and implies the workspace/folder relationship, but adds nothing about projectUid (the undocumented parameter beyond its name) or about UID format/validity.

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 project') plus the destination dimensions (workspace, optionally folder), which cleanly separates it from sibling operations like duplicate_project, update_project, and delete-style tools. An agent can identify the operation and its scope 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?

Gives concrete pre-call workflow ('Call list_workspaces and list_folders before asking the user to choose the destination') and a conditional rule ('Omit toFolderUid only when they choose the workspace root'). It does not mention alternatives such as duplicate_project when the user wants a copy rather than a relocation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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