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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the tag-mapping behavior and the default for keep_tags, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether moving removes files from the source, whether tag mapping overwrites existing tags, or any permission 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 front-loads the primary action and mentions the optional behavior. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it over siblings.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the relationship between 'workspace_id' and 'to_workspace_id' clearly (source vs destination), nor does it clarify the 'to_host_id' requirement. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description leaves some operational ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context for 'keep_tags' (mapping by name) and implies 'workspace_id' is the source, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action ('Move one or more files to a different workspace') and the optional tag-mapping behavior. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'move_file' by indicating it handles multiple files, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or contrast with 'bulk_move_files'.

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 usage for moving files between workspaces and optionally mapping tags, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_file' or 'bulk_move_files'. The presence of siblings with overlapping names suggests a need for clearer differentiation, which is missing.

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