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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds real value with 'This can change who has access', which tells the agent the permission surface is affected — but it omits the concurrency/revision-check behavior implied by expectedRevision and says nothing about what happens to shares on the document.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is vague about what 'can' means in practice.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, but for a destructive, revision-guarded move with three required undocumented parameters, the description is missing the details an agent needs to call it correctly, notably revision semantics and the null projectId case.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. It gestures at project/workspace targeting but never explains that projectId is nullable (moving out of a project), what expectedRevision is for, or what id refers to.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: moving a document to a project or workspace. That is clear enough to separate it from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with move_project or explains how a document move relates to update_document.

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 never says when to choose move_document versus move_project, or when to supply workspaceId instead of projectId. The only guidance sentence is a side-effect warning, not usage direction.

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