check_product_move

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains this is a dry run that mutates nothing, and interprets the return payload ({eligible, blockers}) including concrete blocker codes (asset_in_use, asset_has_orders, forbidden_source/destination). Missing only pagination/timeout or auth caveats.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the dry-run intent and followed by the interpretation rule. Minor noise: the trailing bracketed token '[#81f916]' is unexplained and adds nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so ({eligible, blockers}) plus the semantics of a non-empty blockers list. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this read-only check.

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%, including the note that source_workspace may be omitted if the product is in the Default workspace and that destination_workspace comes from list_my_workspaces. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: a dry-run check of whether a product can be moved to another workspace, explicitly 'without changing anything.' This cleanly separates it from the sibling move_product_to_workspace (which performs the move) and check_design_move (different resource).

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 the decision rule explicitly: a non-empty blockers list means the move would fail, so use copy instead. That routes the agent to the copy_product_to_workspace alternative and defines the precondition for calling this tool at all.

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