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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite IDs but says nothing beyond annotations about side effects — e.g. whether existing short links or scan history tied to the code follow it to the new project.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the usage trigger before the prerequisite. Nothing redundant with the title.

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 and annotations cover the mutation profile, so the definition needn't explain return values. For a two-parameter idempotent move, the description is nearly complete; only the behavioral effect on the code's existing associations is unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds one useful hint — that the project ID can be sourced from `list_projects` — but no format or lookup guidance for the QR code ID. Baseline 3 given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: moving a QR code into another project (folder), with 'folder' clarifying what a project is. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `transfer_qrcode`, which sounds like it could overlap — an agent must guess which one relocates vs. reassigns ownership.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants to move a QR code into another project') and names where the target project ID comes from (`list_projects`). Missing an explicit exclusion against `transfer_qrcode`, so the two move-like operations are not disambiguated.

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