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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the authorization requirement (owner of both teams; team-scoped tokens cannot), what is preserved (public keys, snippets, inbox links, webhook secrets), and three concrete refusal conditions (slug collision, free-plan project cap, Twilio requirement for text alert numbers). The destructiveHint=false annotation is consistent with a move that preserves all identifiers, and the description supplies the human-confirmation step the annotation layer cannot express.

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-loaded with the triggering condition, then invariants, auth, and refusals in a compact sequence with zero filler sentences. Slightly dense in the refusal clause ('when a free destination would pass 3 projects'), which reads tersely and could be clearer, but nothing is wasted.

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, and the description never says what a successful move returns or whether it is synchronous, which is the main remaining gap for an operation touching many resources. Auth, side effects, failure modes, and confirmation requirements are otherwise fully covered for a tool of this complexity.

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% and both the 'pass slug' hint and the 'you must own it' ownership note already appear in the schema property descriptions, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 client (company) and all its projects, forms, submissions, and files') and names the destination scope ('another workspace they own'). The final sentence explicitly disambiguates from the sibling operations archive_client and update_client ('Do not use this to rename or archive').

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 a triggering condition ('Use when the human asks to move a client'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use this to rename or archive'), and a procedural precondition ('Confirm the destination team name with the human first'). An agent knows when to select this tool and when to route elsewhere without reading any other definition.

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