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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=true; the description goes much further, explaining that access is inherited by everyone who can reach the parent, that nothing is renamed or moved, the exact permission requirements for attach vs detach, and the one-level nesting limit. That is precisely the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the access-vs-naming distinction, then permission requirements, then the one-level constraint. Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information with no repetition.

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?

No output schema and only two annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does: it covers effects on access, absence of side effects on names/issues/keys, authorization rules for both directions, and nesting limits. An agent can call this correctly without further context.

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%, including the detach-by-empty-parentKey semantics, so the description adds little new parameter meaning beyond restating that an empty parentKey detaches. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents both parameters fully.

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 (make a subproject / detach) and resource (project) and immediately frames the scope as access control rather than renaming or issue movement. That framing makes it clearly distinct from siblings like move_issue, set_project_public, or create_project.

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 explicit conditions for both directions: attaching requires an admin or a lead of BOTH projects; detaching requires a lead of either; empty parentKey means detach. It doesn't name an alternative sibling tool by name, which keeps it just short of a 5, but the when-to-use guidance is unusually concrete.

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