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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the authorization model (task.edit.any / task.edit.own) and the cross-project constraint, which are not encoded in the schema.

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 with zero filler; the core operation and the null-detach case are front-loaded, and the parenthetical is the shortest way to convey detach semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, but this is a boolean-style mutation where the return is not the agent's concern. The description covers the operation, the detach case, project scoping, and permissions, leaving only minor gaps such as what happens to the previous epic's ordering.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters already document their meaning, including the null-detach behavior for epicId. The description restates the detach semantics and adds the same-project constraint, but adds little beyond the structured fields, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Move one task into an epic') plus the inverse operation, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like move_task_to_sprint or update_task. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 preconditions: the epic must belong to the task's project and the caller must hold task.edit.any (or task.edit.own on their own task). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for sprint assignment, but the constraints are stated clearly enough to decide applicability.

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