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

Annotations cover safety (destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false), but the description goes well beyond them: id changes on kind-change with the old id returning 410 moved_to, goal_id cascading to the whole subtree, budget re-checking at the destination, and requester-gated auth with the exact signing scheme. This is rich behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

The core move semantics and constraints are front-loaded in dense, high-value sentences. The trailing AUTH/TRANSPORT block is accurate and necessary (signing is mandatory) but runs long with SSE-bridge and query-string minutiae that could be trimmed or deferred to a linked doc.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by covering mutation semantics, rejection cases, id churn, cascading effects, and required auth. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly appears to be 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%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema fields by explaining what each destination type does to the node's kind ('target a GOAL → it becomes a top-level task', 'target the PROJECT id → a task comes UP to become a goal'). It stops short of documenting id formats or how to discover valid ids.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('CROSS-HIERARCHY MOVE within a project: move a GOAL or TASK onto a new parent') and enumerates the three destination semantics. It explicitly names the sibling to use for the adjacent case ('To leave the project entirely use spin_out_node'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions for each target type (GOAL, TASK, PROJECT id) and an explicit alternative (spin_out_node) for leaving the project. It also states exclusion conditions (rejects cycles, settled/submitted work, cross-project targets), which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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