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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the optional reordering behavior (placing between issues), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like notifications, history changes, or whether moving between teams affects permissions. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds some value but leaves behavioral nuances unexplained.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and optional reorder are stated first, followed by a clear usage hint. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and optional reorder capability. However, it does not clarify whether state and team are mutually exclusive or both required, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the issue must exist) or what happens on success. Since annotations do not cover these operational details, the description is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool with this parameter complexity.

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% – every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description mentions 'optionally place it between two issues,' which aligns with afterIssue and beforeIssue, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the description does not need to compensate, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'move' and resource 'issue', specifying it moves to another workflow state or team and optionally reorders within a column. It also explicitly claims 'This is the tool to use to change status,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like update_issue that might modify other fields. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes it from alternatives.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: 'This is the tool to use to change status.' This tells an agent when to select it over other issue-related tools. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like move_to_cycle, nor does it state conditions under which another tool should be used. It provides context but lacks formal when-not guidance.

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