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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description reveals important behavioral traits: 'Cascades project change to all descendants' and 'Prevents cycles.' It also explains inheritance behavior, adding meaningful safety and side-effect context.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses compact clauses for each usage mode. Every sentence adds essential detail—reparenting, root moves, cross-project overrides, cascading, and cycle prevention—without redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary decision points: what the tool does, how to invoke each mode, the side-effect of cascading project changes, and a safety guarantee. The required goalId is documented in the schema, so completeness is adequate.

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?

Although schema descriptions cover all three parameters, the description goes further by explaining the interactions: how newParentId and projectId combine, when projectId is used, and that moving under a new parent inherits that parent's project. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a goal to a different parent or project.' It details the two modes (reparenting vs. making root) and the cross-project option, which differentiates it from sibling tools like goal-reorder or goal-update.

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?

It gives explicit usage patterns: 'newParentId=UUID to reparent', 'newParentId=null to make root', and 'projectId=UUID overrides' for cross-project root moves. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to select this tool.

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