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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds value on top by stating the state transition (job withdrawn, move back to pending), that nothing is published, that the call is free, and that it requires the 'act' scope. It stops short of saying whether the withdrawn job is recoverable or what happens to the attempt record.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core effect front-loaded before preconditions and constraints. No filler, though the lead-in phrase is slightly ceremonious and the sentences are dense enough that the legacy path is easy to miss.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the optimistic-concurrency preconditions, the legacy path, cost, and authorization scope. It does not explain what a caller should expect to observe after the call, but with destructive semantics already flagged by annotations the gap is minor.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that job and attempt must be the exact current values, and which fields legacy work additionally requires (move and legacy states plus updated_at). Only the optional `note` parameter is left unaddressed.

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 plus the concrete effect: withdrawing a job on an accepted move and returning the move to pending. This distinguishes it implicitly from skip_move/archive_move by outcome, but neither sibling is named, so the agent must reason about which cancellation-style sibling applies.

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?

"Apply your user's explicit decision to cancel" gives a usage cue and the legacy-work sentence implies a second scenario, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison against the several adjacent siblings (skip_move, archive_move, undo_move, revise_move). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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