Transfer collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that documents travel with the collection and that membership in the target workspace is required, but it never states whether the source copy is removed (move vs. copy), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to name collisions in the target.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite following. Nothing redundant.

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 and no output schema, the description should explain more about side effects and failure modes. It covers the action and the auth prerequisite adequately, but whether this is destructive to the source and what the response contains are left unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that a target workspace slug is required, adding no format, lookup, or validation detail beyond structured fields — baseline 3.

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 (transfer) and resource (a collection and its documents), plus the destination scope (another workspace). This is unambiguous, though there are no similarly-named siblings to contrast against, so no explicit differentiation is offered or needed.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — the API token's user must be a member of the target workspace — and states the required input (target workspace slug). It does not cover when not to use it (e.g., moving a single document belongs to update_document) or any alternatives, keeping it just short of a 5.

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