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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the confirm-gate and the same-organization constraint, and implies an existing coach assignment must be replaced, but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether downstream artifacts (sessions, plans) follow the client, or reversibility. The confirm-gate detail also largely duplicates the schema's `confirm` parameter description.

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?

A single sentence with the operation, scope constraint, and safety behavior all front-loaded; no wasted words.

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?

This is a mutating, unannotated, no-output-schema tool with three undocumented required parameters. The description lacks the auth/permission context and side-effect disclosure an agent would need to invoke it safely, so it is materially incomplete for the tool's 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 description coverage is only 25% (only `confirm` is documented). The description implies profileId is the client and coachId the destination coach, but never states this explicitly and leaves organizationId's relationship to the other two IDs unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Move') plus resource ('client') plus the exact transformation: from current coach to a different coach in the same organization. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like assign_coach_to_location or remove_coach_from_organization.

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 implies when this applies (a client who already has a coach and needs a different one) and constrains the operation to the same organization, but it names no alternative tool and gives no prerequisites such as the permission level required to reassign.

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