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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, open-world, non-read-only, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond them: documents are moved along with the project. It omits whether the move is reversible, how existing shares/collaborators are affected, and any rate or permission constraints — notable gaps for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a destructive move operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a destructive cross-workspace move with zero parameter documentation, the description should state at minimum what the two inputs identify and what happens to the project's existing sharing configuration.

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% and both parameters (id, workspaceId) are undocumented in the schema. The description only obliquely implies that one parameter names the destination workspace; it never says what 'id' is or what format either expects, so it fails to 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+resource ('Move a project') with the important scope detail that the project's documents travel with it, which separates it from move_document. It never names the sibling alternatives or states what happens to workspace-scoped shares, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No indication of when to use this instead of move_document, nor any prerequisite such as required permissions or whether the caller must own/administer both workspaces. The agent is left to infer everything about selection.

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