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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that nothing is sent to the client, that the change is reversible with one more call, that no confirmation is requested, that a Flow triggered on status change still runs, and that a Cotlet API key with app access is required. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and reversibility context an agent needs for a mutation.

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 core action, and the subsequent sentences (reversibility, no client notification, Flow behavior) each carry distinct value. The first two sentences overlap slightly ('Move a project to another of your statuses' vs. 'Moves one project to a status you already have'), which is minor redundancy.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, scope, constraints, side effects, reversibility, automation impact, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters ('One of your project status names' and 'Project ID from list_projects'). The description's 'a status you already have' mildly reinforces that the status must pre-exist, but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Move a project to another of your statuses') and adds scope detail ('Moves one project'). It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling tool (e.g., dubsado_get_project, dubsado_create_project), so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Clear context for use: one project, targeting an already-defined status, with an explicit constraint ('Dubsado does not turn a status from one kind into the other'). No alternative tool is named, but no sibling competes for this action either, so exclusions are adequate.

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