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

Annotations declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial meaning: content (repo, sessionId, URL, history, deployment) is preserved while access/listing changes, and moving to the same workspace is a no-op. This clarifies what 'destructive' actually destroys — reachability, not data.

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?

Well front-loaded (the core action and its non-destructive nature come first), with permissions and returns clearly sectioned. Slightly prose-heavy in the middle paragraph but each sentence carries information.

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-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, idempotency semantics, the access-change consequence, and an inline Returns block. Nothing needed to invoke it 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 both parameters are documented there, including their source tools. The description largely restates the same facts rather than adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 (re-file/move) and resource (artifact) with explicit scope: another workspace of the same team. An agent can distinguish this from artifact-duplicate, artifact-edit and the other artifact-* siblings without opening 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 clear context for when to use it and a strong caveat: confirm with a human before moving something they did not request, since access changes. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. duplicate vs move) explicitly.

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