uselink_move_project_to_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutation but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the project is removed from its previous location, if any), permission requirements, reversibility, or what the response contains. The brevity leaves the agent uninformed about outcomes.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core operation. It is concise with no redundancy or filler, and every word adds value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return value, error conditions, side effects, or prerequisites. Even though the operation seems simple, the agent lacks critical context for successful invocation.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly map project_id and workspace_id to their roles. However, the description's wording 'Move a personal project into a workspace' combined with the parameter names makes the semantics inferable. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (move) and the exact resource transition (a personal project into a workspace). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remove_project_from_workspace' by specifying the direction of the move, and from 'move_document' by targeting projects rather than documents.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'remove_project_from_workspace' or direct workspace assignment. It provides no prerequisites, no mention of whether the project must currently be outside any workspace, and no information about fallback or exceptional cases.

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