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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, but the description adds the substantive consequences: all team members gain internal management and activity access, an explicit confirmation step is required, current revision is enforced, and reader URL and external access settings are preserved. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context an agent needs before a destructive move.

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 verb and resource, then ordered by consequence, prerequisite, and exclusion with no filler. The sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 destructive, four-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers impact scope, confirmation requirement, revision requirement, preserved settings, and unsupported cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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?

Schema description coverage is low at 25% (only 'confirm' is documented), yet the description compensates by implying the role of each remaining argument: the personal brief (document_id), the Admin team (workspace_id), the concurrency guard ('Requires current revision' → expectedRevision), and the confirmation gate. It does not spell out formats or constraints explicitly, so it does not fully close the gap.

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 an explicitly selected personal brief you created into a team') with the qualifying scope ('where you are Admin'). No sibling tool performs this personal-to-team move, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 clear preconditions ('personal brief you created', 'Admin' in the target team) and a hard exclusion for unsupported directions ('does not move team briefs back to personal or transfer file funding'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those excluded cases, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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