project-move

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the context transition (personal vs workspace) but no further behavioral details such as permission requirements, visibility implications, or side effects on collaboration. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose with no redundancy. Every word 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with conditional requirements (workspaceId needed for move-to-workspace), the description is minimal. It does not explain the move's impact or preconditions, though the schema covers parameter semantics. With an output schema present, return values aren't needed, but the behavioral implications of moving remain under-specified.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, thus meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('project') and clearly scopes the operation to between personal and workspace contexts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add-projects, update-projects, or find-projects.

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 implies the use case (relocating a project between contexts) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-projects or project-management. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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