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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not say whether the deployment keeps its URL, domains, env vars, or slug, nor whether the move can be reversed or causes downtime. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation this is a thin disclosure.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and destination front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than optimally concise, which is already penalized in other dimensions.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and no documented parameters, yet the definition gives only a single sentence. It never states the outcome of a successful move or what the caller should expect on failure, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters and does not explain them at all. The names id and toProjectId are largely self-documenting, which prevents a 1, but there is no hint about ID formats or how to obtain a valid project ID.

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 uses a specific verb ("Move") and resource ("a deployment") plus the destination ("another of your projects"), so the agent knows the operation without consulting the schema. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as deployments_update, which is the main remaining 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., source and target project ownership), and no named alternative such as deployments_update or files_move. The agent must infer that this is the relocalization tool rather than a settings edit.

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