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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds real context beyond them: the move is persisted immediately ('Saved when this runs') and the reason text surfaces on a user approval card. It does not mention permission requirements or failure behavior for invalid folder/index values.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, followed by the persistence/justification note and the prerequisite. Nothing is padded and no sentence restates the tool name.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what changes, that it is saved, why reason matters, and which skill to load first. Minor gaps remain around how index interacts with an unchanged folder and what the tool returns on success.

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 the per-parameter baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning on top by framing folderId and index as independently optional ('and/or'), telling the agent that reordering without refiling, and refiling without reordering, are both valid call shapes.

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: moving a dashboard into a folder (or top level) and/or repositioning it in the project's shared sidebar order. The phrase 'shared sidebar order' sharply scopes it away from layout/panel siblings like update_dashboard_layout, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 an actionable prerequisite (load the manage-dashboards skill first) and instructs the agent to justify the change in reason because it is user-visible and saved. There is no explicit when-not guidance, e.g. how this differs from update_dashboard_folder for folder-level operations.

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