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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description goes far beyond: tags are matched by name or created in the target, the lane is cleared, author and reviewers are granted access to the new workspace, account admins only, and the move is reversible. It also discloses the failure mode for channel mismatch — exactly the side-effect detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Six short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then mechanics, then constraints. Every sentence carries distinct operational information; none restates the name or the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers preconditions (draft only, admin only), side effects (tags, lane, access grants), failure behavior, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs before invoking 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. The description earns above that by clarifying that post_id resolves in any workspace, not just the active one — a non-obvious lookup scope — and by pointing at list_workspaces for the workspace argument.

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 with scope: 'Move a draft to another workspace (client) on this account.' It also distinguishes the operation from anything a sibling does by noting it locates the post across workspaces rather than in the active one.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('for a post saved in the wrong one'), an explicit exclusion ('Only drafts move: cancel a scheduled post first' — naming the cancel_post sibling's role), and a refusal condition ('A post set to go out on a channel that isn't in the new workspace is refused').

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