baron_issue_move

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: `block` and `unblock` set an orthogonal flag and leave the role alone, `reconcile` clears a role the provider contradicts, and `transition` resolves an abstract role to the native state. This is well-detailed for the complexity.

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 informative but somewhat dense and run-on, with parenthetical comments that could be structured more clearly. It front-loads the primary action but could benefit from breaking into bullet points for readability.

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 complexity of four distinct operations with nuanced behaviors (orthogonal flags, role resolution), the description covers the essential semantics well. There is no output schema, but the description implies each op has a specific return (e.g., `block` sets a flag), which is adequate for agent invocation.

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 only 25%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the `op` parameter's four valid values in detail and mentions `reason` is required for `block`. However, it does not cover parameters like `id` or `role` beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format constraints for `id`), and the empty `role` and `reason` descriptions in the schema are not supplemented.

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 clearly states that the tool moves a work item through the workflow or flags it, listing four specific ops (transition, reconcile, block, unblock) with brief explanations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like baron_issue_read and baron_issue_write by focusing on workflow transitions and flagging, not reading or writing issue data.

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 basic context for when to use each operation (e.g., `transition` for moving an item, `block` for flagging) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or common pitfalls.

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