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

The description discloses the side effects of moving captures and briefs, and explains the special behavior when intent is 'accept-proposal'. It also notes that null team is rejected. This aligns with the idempotent and non-destructive annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, fitting two sentences without unnecessary detail. It front-loads the core action and then elaborates with conditional behavior, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description provides enough context to call the tool correctly for both proposed and existing nodes, and mentions the moving of captures and briefs. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, and the behavioral nuances are covered. Minor lack of explicit 'when not to use' is not critical.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for intent, nodeId, and teamId, clarifying their roles and constraints. The orgId lacks a description, but its purpose is inferable. The tool description reinforces parameter behavior but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's primary action ('Set the owning team of a process in the process landscape') and distinguishes behavior for proposed vs. existing processes. It also notes the admin permission requirement, which helps agents understand scope.

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 implicitly guides usage by explaining what happens in each scenario (accepting a proposal vs. moving an existing process). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to choose this over alternatives like acceptClarityLandscapeNode.

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