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

The description thoroughly discloses side effects: default copy leaves source untouched, move deletes source after successful copy, conflict strategies skip/overwrite/rename, and the '__global__' restriction. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive by default.

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 well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then covers defaults and edge cases efficiently. No fluff; every sentence provides necessary information.

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 bulk transfer tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and options. It could mention what happens on partial failure or if source docs are missing, but such edge cases are not essential for calling the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds context: it clarifies the meaning of 'rename' (adds '(copy)' title) and the constraint on project IDs, which is not in the schema. It adds value without redundancy.

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 action (transfer) on a specific resource (knowledge/documentation entries) between projects. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that add, list, update, or delete individual docs. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It explains the default behavior and options for mode and conflict handling, and specifies a constraint on project IDs. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear that this is a bulk transfer tool versus single-doc operations.

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