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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that moves are all-or-nothing relative to the source revision, append items in the given order, affect only working versions while readers see approved versions, and preserve notes/details/history. It also explains privacy and archived-list constraints.

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 front-loaded with the action and effect, then adds only operational constraints and follow-up requirements. Each sentence carries useful information for a complex destructive move.

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 destructive move with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, privacy, archival constraints, and approval workflows well. It does not state what a successful call returns, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds useful semantics for revision mismatch behavior and destination ordering, though it does not additionally explain the optional toRevision parameter 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 verb and resource: moving existing picks from one person's list to another. It also clarifies preservation of notes/details/history and destination ordering, which distinguishes it from add/remove/reorder siblings.

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 gives explicit operational conditions: pass the source list's revision from list_items, abort if it changed, unarchive an archived destination before use, and call review_items/confirm_items for live destinations after approval. It also separates source published-version updates into a different owner-approval flow.

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