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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds almost nothing beyond restating that it is an update. It does not explain the meaning of the required idempotencyKey or expectedVersion beyond what the schema already says, nor does it clarify what 'hosted move' means or what the privacy filtering entails. Some credit is given because the schema's parameter descriptions already cover version conflicts and idempotency well.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though the vaguely worded trailing clause makes the sentence less informative than its length suggests.

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?

This is a seven-parameter mutation with nested objects, four required parameters and no output schema. The description does not clarify the difference from update_context_note, what 'hosted move' means, or what happens on success or version conflict beyond the schema-level hints. More context is needed for an agent to call it confidently.

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 has 100% description coverage and includes detailed descriptions for idempotencyKey, expectedVersion and details. The description itself does not add any parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'privacy-filtered project metadata', which loosely relates to the details object but is vague. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 phrase 'Update hosted move context note using privacy-filtered project metadata' names a verb and a resource, but 'move context note' is an unusual noun phrase and the '.using privacy-filtered project metadata' clause is ambiguous. It is not distinguishable from the sibling update_context_note without opening either 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of update_context_note, archive_context_note, convert_context_note, or record_context_node. The only implicit hint is the mention of 'privacy-filtered project metadata'.

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