move_work_item_to_document

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses critical side effects: the attach path 'atomically sets module and inserts a part,' it 'auto-creates one link to the enclosing heading,' and warns that 'a later same-role create_work_item_links reports created but is NOT persisted.' This goes well beyond the structured annotations and reveals permanent and non-obvious behaviors.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the purpose, then groups related constraints (positioning, heading rejection, move-vs-copy, link side effect) into concise paragraphs. No filler words; the only minor flaw is the unusual capitalization 'THE attach path,' but it does not hinder comprehension.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: positioning rules, heading restrictions, move semantics, link auto-creation, persistence caveat, and data source for part IDs. The output schema handles return values, and annotations cover safety; the description fills the remaining behavioral and contextual gaps comprehensively.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds essential meaning not fully captured in the schema: it explains the exclusivity of previous_part_id/next_part_id in plain language ('At most one'), the behavior when omitting both ('append'), and where to obtain valid part IDs ('read_document_parts'). This makes the parameter semantics much clearer.

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 opens with 'Move an existing work item into a document at a given position,' which clearly states the action (move), the object (work item), and the destination (document). It explicitly distinguishes from copying ('moved, not copied') and from the sibling 'move_work_item_from_document' by naming the direction. This is a specific verb+resource+target definition.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and alternatives: 'Headings are rejected — add headings via update_document <hN>' tells users to use another tool for headings. It also states 'Part ids from read_document_parts' as a dependency, and explains the parameter usage: 'At most one of previous_part_id (AFTER) / next_part_id (BEFORE); omit both to append.' These are clear directives on when and how to use the tool.

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