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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the 25-bottle limit re-check on unopened/opened and the mandatory preview/confirm_token round-trip before committing. That two-step confirmation requirement is significant context the annotations don't convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and states, followed by the limit constraint and then the critical two-step workflow. No filler; every sentence carries actionable 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining that the first call returns a preview and confirm_token, which is effectively the return-behavior an agent needs. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly complete 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 status, bottle_id and confirm_token are already fully documented, including the confirm_token flow. The description only marginally reinforces the limit semantics already stated in the status enum description, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (bottle) and enumerates the target states, so the agent understands exactly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby update_bottle or add_bottle siblings, which is the only gap.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: the two-step preview-then-confirm flow with the condition for the second call. It doesn't route the agent away from alternative siblings (e.g. update_bottle) for adjacent needs, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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