Bulk-move Tracker issues

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

Annotations already declare the non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world profile. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that the call is asynchronous, returns an operation handle, and must be polled via bulk_get — information not present in the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and load-bearing: the first defines the action and return, the second gives the polling requirement. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining the returned operation and the bulk_get polling path. The nested request body is well covered by the schema; only the when-to-use routing against sibling tools is thin.

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 100% with no enums, so the nested body fields (queue, issues, notify, values, initialStatus, moveAllFields) are already fully documented. The description adds no extra syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (bulk move), resource (Tracker issues), and destination (another queue), and flags the operation as async. It distinguishes itself from the single-issue tracker_issues_move and from tracker_issues_update_bulk by naming the bulk-move scope, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 only usage guidance is 'Poll with bulk_get', which usefully covers the async follow-up but does not say when to prefer this tool over tracker_issues_move or tracker_issues_transition_bulk. Implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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