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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable authorization context not in the annotations — the differing permission requirements for moving in versus out — which helps the agent anticipate failures.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the primary operation front-loaded and the permission qualifiers following. No filler.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers direction, semantics, and permission gating adequately for correct invocation. Return behavior is unspecified but low-risk for a move operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that omitting org_id reverses the operation, but this largely duplicates the schema's own note rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (move) and resource (flow) with clear directionality (into or out of an organization). It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like move_flow_to_folder and move_flow_to_team without needing to name them.

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?

Explains both directions of use and the permission conditions that gate them: the flow owner can move a flow in, while only an organization owner or admin can move it out. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the when-to-use context is clear and actionable.

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