move_work_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds only the placement mechanic ('optionally before nextWorkItemId'), and says nothing about what happens when no placement is given, whether ordering of other items shifts, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key operation and destination appear first. It is efficient, though borderline terse given what an agent might still need to know.

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 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers the core operation. However, it leaves open the default placement when nextWorkItemId is omitted and whether the move affects sibling ordering, which are the details an agent would most want clarified.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the '(see list_sections)' pointer for sectionId. The description's mention of nextWorkItemId merely restates the schema's 'Place before this work item (optional)' rather than adding format or default behavior.

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 ('Move') and resource ('work item') plus the destination concept ('another section'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_section or create_work_item. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting any alternative, so it does not reach a 5.

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, and no mention of when another tool (e.g., move_section, or update_work_item for field edits) would be appropriate. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the verb.

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