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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses exactly what is destroyed (chat history and older revisions), the authorization requirement on both teams, and the dryRun preview semantics (which Connections reconnect vs drop). For a destructive mutation this is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then destructiveness, then auth, then the preview option. No filler and each clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent move with no output schema, the description covers what is lost, who may perform it, and how to dry-run it. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 75% and dryRun already has a schema description, but the description adds the concrete 'reconnect vs drop' outcome that the schema only states abstractly. The phrase 'the team in the URL' is slightly confusing for the team_id source param and artifactId remains undocumented, keeping it below a 5.

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 specific resource (Pulse dashboard) with clear source→destination framing. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like duplicatePulseDashboard, updatePulseDashboard, and restorePulseDashboardVersion without opening any schema.

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 a clear use context plus the permission precondition (Manager or above on both teams) and points to dryRun for preview. It does not name alternative siblings such as duplicatePulseDashboard for agents who may want a copy rather than a move, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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