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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, it discloses the real consequence ('their plans pause during the move'), the authorization requirement (owner/admin), the impact level, and the confirm-gated preview behavior. That is the substantive mutation context an agent needs before writing.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a parenthetical confirmation note; the action and its side effect are front-loaded before the caution. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior for a high-impact mutation (pause effect, confirmation gating, who may call it). Minor gaps: whether the move is reversible, how long plans stay paused, and the source for coachId.

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 67%; the description reinforces that the coach and gym identifiers matter and restates the confirm gating that the schema already documents for the confirm field. However, it does not say where coachId should come from (unlike organizationId, which the schema points to list_my_organizations), so one undocumented parameter remains ambiguous.

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 a solo coach's clients under a gym') plus the precise scope ('solo coach'), and clarifies the side effect on the entity's plans. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as reassign_client_to_coach or bulk_import_gym_coaches.

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 an explicit audience constraint ('Owner/admin action — high impact') and a caution to 'confirm exactly which coach and gym'. It does not name an alternative tool for the non-solo-coach or bulk case, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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