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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: no publishing occurs, it is free, and it requires the 'act' scope. It does not explain what happens when the expected states/updated_at mismatch (presumably a concurrency failure), which is the key risk for a destructive write.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the intent and followed by the inputs and safety/side-effect caveats. Every sentence carries information; no padding.

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 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and scope but omits the 'note' parameter and the failure mode when expected_move_state/expected_*_updated_at don't match current state.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate, and it does name prepared_content/asset_url, move and legacy job states, and updated_at. But it gives no format guidance for the timestamp/state fields, and the 'note' parameter is never mentioned.

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 object: apply the user's explicit decision to adopt work prepared before attempt tracking (a null attempt) as an accepted move's prepared result. The 'legacy/null attempt' framing distinguishes it from sibling accept_move, though the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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 the trigger condition (user's explicit decision after inspecting prepared content or asset URL) and a clear exclusion ('This never publishes anything'), which steers agents away from ship_move. It does not explicitly contrast with accept_move, leaving some ambiguity.

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