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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation with open-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague phrase 'under the user's account' and says nothing about required ownership of both projects, reversibility, or side effects on scans/history.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized but arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 so return values need no explanation, but the description leaves the central ambiguity with 'transfer_qrcode' unresolved for a mutation tool. Given the cluttered sibling namespace, it is not complete enough to guide correct selection.

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%, and both parameters (idqrcode, idproject) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Move a QR code') plus the scope ('from one project to another under the user's account'), so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling 'transfer_qrcode', which sounds like the same operation, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With a sibling named 'transfer_qrcode' that plausibly covers the same action, the omission is a real gap – the agent has no basis for choosing between the two.

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