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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces and expands: 'Destructively move' aligns with destructiveHint, and it discloses that the operation is asynchronous by instructing to 'track the queued requestId.' It also adds the constraint that it cannot divide amounts, which is a behavioral limitation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. It avoids redundancy with the schema but uses domain jargon (e.g., 'operation handles', 'economic legs') that may require prior knowledge. It is concise enough and logically structured: what, when, how.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, output schema present, destructive action), the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: destructive nature, limitation, preview step, and async tracking. The output schema presumably explains return values. It does not mention required permissions or error handling, but these are not commonly required. The description is complete for an agent to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. For example, the operations parameter schema already says 'Whole existing operation handles to move unchanged into a new transaction; do not use this to divide one normalized transfer amount into new economic legs,' which mirrors the description. Thus, the description provides no additional value for parameter interpretation beyond the schema.

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: 'Destructively move selected whole existing operation handles unchanged out of one accounting transaction into a new classified transaction.' It clearly identifies the resource (operation handles) and the outcome (new classified transaction). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when it applies and its limitation on dividing amounts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'use this only when the needed economic legs already exist as operation handles.' It also states when not to use: 'It cannot divide one transfer amount into new economic legs' and suggests alternatives ('repair sync normalization or use a supported persisted replacement lifecycle'). It also instructs to 'Preview the grouping first, then track the queued requestId,' providing a clear usage sequence.

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