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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose validation constraints that hint at mutation risk, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility/undo, or what happens on version mismatch, which matters for a write tool.

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 tightly packed sentence with the primary action front-loaded and constraints in parentheses. No filler, though the parenthetical constraint block is dense enough to be slightly hard to parse.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: the expectedVersion parameter and failure/conflict behavior go unmentioned, and there is no information about the result of the move.

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% across 5 parameters. The description clarifies startMs and trackId semantics (new start time, optional destination track) but leaves itemId, projectId, and especially expectedVersion entirely undefined, so the concurrency contract is unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource (move a timeline item) and states the two dimensions of the move: new start time and optionally a new track. It implicitly distinguishes itself from timeline.trim_item and timeline.set_speed, but never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 supplies important precondition rules (same track type only, item must not be a transition nor have one attached), which tell the agent when the call will fail. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over trim_item, split_item, or batch operations.

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