Move Issue to Project

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

The description explains the async behavior, polling, and the possibility of a new key. It also mentions error conditions. Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the description complements this without contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear header, behavior paragraph, and argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the section on async polling could be slightly more concise.

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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains the return value and error conditions. It covers Jira Cloud limitation, async nature, and key change. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats similar info (e.g., pattern, key assignment) but does not add significant new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'Jira issue to a different project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jira_move_issues_to_backlog' by specifying cross-project move. The phrase 'Jira Cloud only' further clarifies scope.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: for cross-project moves, keeping issue type. It mentions asynchronous polling and timeout. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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