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

Goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses what actually changes (permissions, approval rules, inherited timezone) versus what does not (content), the two refusal conditions (content needing approval at destination, account on hold moving into a paying location), and the required scope (`screen.edit` at both old and new location). The destructive/idempotent annotation hints are consistent with 'single home in the tree.'

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-loads the core action and consequence in the first sentence, then layers refusal conditions, usage scenarios, alternatives, and permissions. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the accumulation of clauses makes it longer than strictly necessary.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description already covers prerequisites, side effects, refusal cases, and alternative tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to nodeId by explaining that the destination governs manage rights, approval rules, and timezone inheritance. It does not add syntax beyond the schema, so it stays shy of a 5.

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 one screen to a different location (org node)') and immediately distinguishes it from the nearest sibling by noting this is the screen's 'single home in the tree.' An agent can tell it apart from add_screens_to_group and bulk_create without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use add_screens_to_group for a flat label that changes no permissions, and bulk_create to create the location first. It also names the scenario ('post-migration cleanup'), so when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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