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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses two important side effects: the project change cascades to all descendants, and cycles are prevented. This gives an agent critical knowledge about blast radius and safety that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three compact sentences express the purpose, parameter behavior, and side effects with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value.

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 all essential aspects: required and optional parameter semantics, conditional behavior (root vs reparent), cross-project moves, descendant cascade, and cycle protection. No critical operational detail 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interaction semantics: newParentId=UUID reparents and inherits the parent's project, newParentId=null roots the goal, and projectId overrides the target project only in the root case. This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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'), which clearly states the tool's operation. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like goal-reorder or goal-update by focusing on changing parent/project rather than reordering or editing fields.

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 gives a clear use case and detailed parameter-based instructions, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as goal-reorder or goal-update. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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