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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: a 500-row cap, ordering and stable-row-ID preservation guarantees, and the requirement to pass the current sheet revision for concurrency control.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core operation and row-count limit are front-loaded, and the concurrency and ordering guarantees follow immediately.

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?

For a mutation tool with an output schema (returns need not be described) and full annotation coverage, the remaining burden is behavioral, and the description covers the cap, ordering, ID stability, placement modes, and revision semantics. Adequate without over-explaining.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20%, the description must compensate and largely does: it explains rowIds' 500 limit, that placement of null means append and otherwise takes an anchor/side, and that expectedRevision must be the current sheet revision. Only sheetId is left unaddressed.

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 (Move) and resource (rows) with concrete scope: up to 500 rows as one ordered block, placed before/after an anchor or appended. This clearly separates it from sibling mutations like sheets_delete_rows, sheets_add_rows, and sheets_insert_records, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the mechanics described (before/after anchor, or append with null). There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-X guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the tool's place among the many sheets_* siblings.

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