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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses access propagation ('everyone who may reach the parent may reach the subproject too'), permission differences for attach vs detach, the one-level hierarchy constraint, and non-side-effects like no renaming or issue movement.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the main operation. Every sentence adds meaningful scope, permission, side-effect, or constraint information, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Covers permissions, access semantics, the one-level restriction, and non-effects. Combined with fully documented parameters, this gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly even without an output schema or annotations.

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 100%, and both 'projectKey' and 'parentKey' are already well described in the schema. The description reinforces the empty-parentKey detachment behavior, but it adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific operation: 'Make an existing project a subproject of another, or take it back out with an empty parentKey.' It also distinguishes its scope from sibling concerns by saying it is about 'ACCESS, not about names or issues' and explicitly that nothing is renamed and no issues move.

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?

Provides explicit conditions for when to attach vs detach and clear role requirements: 'Attaching needs an admin or somebody who leads BOTH projects... detaching needs a lead of either.' The 'not about names or issues' clause gives useful when-not guidance, though it does not name sibling alternatives directly.

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