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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world hints, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: batch size limit, no-trimming/no-cursor behavior, positional failure reporting under 'failed' with request index and gRPC status, and confirms reads only. This is exactly the extra value the annotations don't provide.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then covers batch limits and failure semantics efficiently with no wasted words. Every clause (batch, 50 limit, no trim, failed array, reads only) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the response shape (id, type, version, owner, decoded Move fields under 'json') and error handling (positional 'failed' entries). For a 2-param read tool with annotations covering safety, nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'ids' and 'version' are fully documented in the schema. The description confirms the 50-id limit and positional failure behavior, which aligns with the schema, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Move objects by id') and adds scope detail (batch, up to 50, no cursor). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like suiListOwnedObjects (which lists owned objects) by framing this as direct id lookup with positional failure reporting.

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 batch nature and 50-id limit imply when to use this versus single-object siblings, and the 'no cursor' note clarifies a boundary condition. However, no explicit alternative is named for single-id reads or when a cursor-based listing is preferable.

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