Move messaging messages

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by stating that the operation affects the live CPI system, cannot be undone, moves ALL messages, and requires user confirmation. It even names the underlying function import and HTTP method, giving the agent a clear picture of the operation's blast radius.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence communicates the destructive nature first, then the action, scope, mechanism, system impact, and confirmation requirement. No words are wasted.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the action, scope, target system, irreversibility, and mandatory user confirmation. There is no missing information an agent would need to safely invoke it.

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?

The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully reinforces that there are no selectable parameters because it moves ALL messages, which explains why no parameter documentation is needed.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it 'Moves ALL JMS messages between queues on the tenant' via a specific function import, so an agent understands the core action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar sibling tools like retry_messaging_messages, but the 'ALL' scope and queue-move behavior make it reasonably distinguishable.

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 implies the use case: move all JMS messages between queues. It also names a hard prerequisite—user confirmation—before proceeding, which is useful procedural guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives or when it should not be used, leaving some ambiguity.

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