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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the capabilities:write scope requirement, the optimistic-concurrency requirement of a current row version, and the 'active'-only constraint on both endpoints. It does not disclose side effects such as cycle rejection, impact on descendants, or what happens to sortOrder placement.

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?

A single sentence with the action, the target variants, and the preconditions front-loaded; no filler or repetition of schema detail.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no coverage, and auth plus versioning are stated. For a hierarchy-mutating tool, a note on cycle prevention or how descendants are affected would close the last gap, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains that parentCapabilityId may be null to move to the root and that expectedRowVersion must be the latest. capabilityId is self-evident and idempotencyKey is documented in the schema. Only sortOrder remains unexplained in both places.

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 ("Moves one active Capability below another active Capability") and covers the root case explicitly via "parentCapabilityId null". It does not name a sibling or contrast with capability_update, but reparenting is clearly differentiated by the 'moves ... below' framing.

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 preconditions (capabilities:write scope, latest row version, both capabilities must be active) and explains the root-move variant, which is genuine when-to-use context. It offers no exclusions or alternatives — e.g., no guidance on when to use capability_update for sortOrder versus this tool, or what to do on a version conflict.

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