Move Issue to Another Queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, establishing this is a mutation. The description goes beyond this by disclosing a key behavioral consequence: the issue receives a new key in the target queue, and the updated issue is returned. This is valuable context—users would otherwise not know the original key becomes obsolete. However, it does not mention side effects like field clearing or notification behavior, though these are covered in parameter descriptions.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds a crucial consequence and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, output schema, mutation), the description is complete enough for high-level understanding. It covers the primary action, key replacement behavior, and return value. Caveats like workflow differences and field clearing are left to parameter descriptions, which are comprehensive. A warning about the irreversible nature of the key change might add value, but the lack of it does not make the description inadequate.

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. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The example of key change relates to the queue parameter but does not introduce new syntactic or semantic details. The parameter descriptions themselves are thorough, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Move a Yandex Tracker issue to a different queue.' The verb 'move' and resource are specific, and the example (TASKS-1 → NEWQUEUE-42) reinforces the core behavior. This distinguishes issue_move from sibling tools like issue_update or issue_close, which modify or transition but do not relocate to a new queue.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied by the purpose: an agent should use this when an issue needs to be moved to a different queue. The parameter description for initial_status provides partial guidance ('Set this to true when moving to a queue with a different workflow'), but the main description lacks direct alternative comparisons.

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