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

The description explicitly states that older revisions and chat history are deleted, yet the annotation destructiveHint is false. This is a direct contradiction between the description and annotations, severely undermining behavioral transparency. The tool is destructive in effect, but the annotation claims otherwise.

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, using two sentences to convey the action, key side effects, permissions, and optional dryRun. It is well-structured with no fluff, 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 covers the essential aspects: action, source/destination, permissions, side effects, and preview option. There is no output schema, but the absence is not a major gap since the operation's result (success/error) is typical. The description does not specify return details, but the tool's behavior is sufficiently explained.

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?

Three of four parameters have detailed descriptions: dryRun explains preview behavior, team_id clarifies API key pinning, and targetTeamId indicates the destination. artifactId lacks a description but is clearly the dashboard UUID from context. Overall the descriptions add meaningful semantics beyond bare parameter names.

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 verb 'Move' and resource 'Pulse dashboard', specifies the source team (from the URL) and destination team (targetTeamId), and elaborates on the effect (keeping only latest revision, deleting chat history and older revisions). It also mentions permissions and dryRun preview, making the intent unambiguous and distinguishing it from related tools like duplicate or publish.

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 provides preconditions (Manager or above on both teams) and the dryRun option, giving clear guidance on when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like moveAgent or duplicatePulseDashboard, so a subtle 'use this when X' is missing, but the purpose is clear enough.

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