project-move

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds that the operation moves a project between personal and workspace contexts, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as whether the original is removed or if permissions are needed. Thus it provides minimal additional value beyond the 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that states the core action efficiently. However, it is overly terse and omits important context, so it earns a 4 for structure but is not exceptional.

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 five parameters, an output schema, and a multi-step operation, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain conditions for actions, required fields, or consequences, relying entirely on the schema and 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?

The input schema covers all parameter descriptions (100% coverage), including the action enum and required workspaceId. The description adds no extra parameter semantics or usage details, so it relies on the schema to explain the parameters.

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 identifies the verb (move), resource (project), and direction (between personal and workspace contexts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-projects or add-projects, which perform different operations on 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the function without mentioning scenarios, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as update-projects or project-management.

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