Move many candidates

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), but the description adds genuinely non-annotation context: it is rate-limited, it continues past individual failures, and it requires user confirmation. It stops short of saying how partial failures are surfaced or whether auth/permission scoping applies.

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, each carrying distinct information (bulk scope, confirmation workflow, rate-limit/failure behavior, note semantics) with no 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 bulk mutation with no output schema, it covers the critical operational facts an agent needs (confirmation, rate limit, partial failure, shared note). It leaves out the maxItems=200 bound and how failed items are reported, which would matter at the edges.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'note' is described in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that all candidates share one 'stage' and one identical 'note', but it omits the 200-item cap and any stage-value semantics.

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 (move), resource (candidates), and scope (a list to the same stage in one go). The bulk scope unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling move_candidate without needing to name it.

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 a concrete usage precondition: show the user the list and get explicit confirmation first. It does not name when to prefer the single-candidate move_candidate or when-not to use this, so it falls short of explicit alternatives.

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