move_test_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly carried structurally. The description usefully adds that test cases, results, and configuration are preserved, but it omits the obvious destructive consequence — that the run leaves its previous milestone — and any auth requirements, so it only partially fills the remaining gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the first two sentences are redundant restatements of the same action, and the third sentence about preservation, while useful, is the only content not already implied by the verb.

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 nested path/body objects, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers what moves and what is retained, which is the minimum an agent needs. It stops short of the operational detail (permissions, previous-milestone removal, failure modes) that would make it complete.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description has to carry the load, and it does map both parameters at a high level: 'using its unique identifier' implies the testRunId path param and 'to a different milestone' implies the milestone_id body param. It adds no format, type, or lookup guidance beyond that mapping, so it is only adequate.

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 and resource ('Move a test run') plus the target scope ('to a different milestone within the project'), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It is inherently distinguished from the similarly named move_test_case sibling by resource, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., required project/milestone permissions), and no mention of how this differs from put_test_run or clone_test_run, which could also change a run's placement. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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