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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it explains exactly what is at risk: lost values in missing target columns, cleared sprint, secret readability change, refusal behavior, and permission requirements. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a destructive 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then key invariants, then dry-run consequences, refusal conditions, and permissions. Every sentence carries non-redundant operational 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?

For a destructive cross-project move with no output schema, it covers the critical unknowns: data loss, sprint clearing, secret exposure, status mapping, sub-task handling, and required permissions. An agent has enough to decide whether and how to call it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: apply=false is explicitly a dry-run that reports costs, and statuses is explained with an example mapping format. It does not add much for key or toProject 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 ('Move an issue into another project') and enumerates what moves with it, making the scope concrete. The phrase 'into another project' distinguishes relocation from ordinary issue editing or linking.

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 guidance: run with apply=false first, use statuses for unmatched target states, do not move sub-tasks directly, and ensure write access in both projects. These are concrete when/when-not conditions and a procedural alternative for sub-tasks.

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