Move Issue to Project

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

While annotations include destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the issue retains its type, the key may change (with an example), the operation is asynchronous with polling, and there is a 30-second timeout. This exceeds what annotations alone provide and is genuinely helpful for an agent predicting side effects.

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 efficiently organized into three short paragraphs, each serving a purpose: core action, behavior details, and async/polling behavior. Every sentence adds operational value without fluff or repetition.

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 output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the overall behavior, including the key change and async polling. It does not mention potential failure modes or permission prerequisites, but for a move operation with this complexity, the provided details are adequate and likely sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described, including pattern and examples. The description adds some context (e.g., issue type retention, key change) but largely reiterates what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and clearly identifies the resource ('Jira issue') and destination ('to a different project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue, jira_transition_issue, and jira_delete_issue. The scope is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: moving an issue to a different project. It also notes the Jira Cloud-only restriction and the use of the bulk move API. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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