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

The description does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Since readOnlyHint and destructiveHint are both false, the agent knows this is a mutating operation but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects. The description adds the 'owner-private' nuance but doesn't explain consequences or requirements.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant information.

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 move operation with annotations indicating a mutation, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks information about return values (though output schema exists), prerequisites, or error conditions. However, the output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 50% schema coverage, the schema already describes workspace_id and workspace_name. The description adds no semantic detail about item_id or folder_id. Since the schema covers half, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (move), the resource (owner-private Collect+ item), and the target (normal workspace folder). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_collectplus_item or read_collectplus_item. It also adds the key scope constraint 'owner-private', which is not in the name.

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 implies the tool is for moving owner-private items, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like move_file or move_files_to_workspace. It lacks exclusions or conditions that would route the agent to a different sibling. It is clear enough for the specific case but not comprehensive.

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