move_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the purge is irreversible short of the backup, a backup is written, conflicts (uids target already holds) stay put, and 'outside' edge artifacts (relations, diagram links/jumps, superseded_by marks, [[uid]] references) are dropped. This is precisely the destructive, lossy behavior an agent must know.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then parameters, then the dry_run workflow. Slightly dense with parentheticals and backticks, but every clause carries operational weight and nothing is filler.

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-param destructive move with no annotations and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it covers scope, loss, backup, conflicts, target discovery, and the safe dry-run-first workflow. It doesn't explicitly describe the shape of the dry_run report fields beyond naming conflicts and outside, which is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: uids is comma-separated, domain is a path whose subdomains and archived rows go too, either or both may be given, dry_run's default and meaning are spelled out, and create makes a missing target. Meaningful semantics far beyond the bare schema titles.

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: carry memories from the active project into another and remove them here. It goes beyond a simple rename by describing exactly what travels and what is purged, and names the sibling list_projects() as the way to discover targets.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and a strong workflow rule: dry_run defaults to reporting-only, read the report with the user, then widen the slice or accept the loss BEFORE calling again with dry_run=False. It also explains the create flag for non-existent targets. This is genuine when/how guidance, not inference.

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