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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the operation moves rather than copies, that the previous team is reported back, and that ambiguous names return candidates instead of guessing. These are valuable behavioral details not covered by annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The core action and key caveats are front-loaded. Efficient and clear.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the critical output (previous team reported back) and the ambiguity fallback. It could describe the success response format more fully, but the essentials are present for a two-parameter tool.

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?

The schema already documents that parameters accept names or ids. The description adds the behavior for ambiguous names (returning candidates), which is not in the schema. This enriches parameter semantics beyond the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 states a clear action: placing an influencer into a team, and clarifies it is a move rather than a copy because an influencer belongs to one team at a time. This distinguishes it from creation or update operations among siblings.

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 the tool is used to reassign an influencer to a different team. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the move semantics are clearly stated and it is distinct from create_influencer or create_team. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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