Move Issue to Another Queue

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait: the issue receives a new key in the target queue. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explaining a permanent side effect. However, it does not mention potential issues like losing old references, permissions needed, or whether the move is reversible.

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 two sentences long, efficient, and immediately conveys the core action and a key consequence (new key). No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated as existing), the description adequately covers the return value (updated issue with new key and queue). It does not need to detail every output field. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and effects.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra meaning. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what is in the schema. 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 tool moves a Yandex Tracker issue to a different queue, provides a concrete example of key change (TASKS-1 → NEWQUEUE-42), and indicates it returns the updated issue. This distinguishes it from siblings like issue_execute_transition (which changes status) or issue_update (which modifies fields).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like issue_execute_transition or issue_update. It assumes the agent understands that moving to a different queue is distinct from other operations. No direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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