move_test_case

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

The annotations already provide the safety profile (read-only false, destructive false, idempotent true), and the description mostly reinforces that moves stay within the same project. The 'different folder' and 'same project' scope adds a small amount of behavioral context, but doesn't disclose anything beyond the schema constraints or annotations.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the exception. It does not repeat the schema or add filler; every words earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter move operation with no output schema, the description effectively captures what the tool does and its main boundary condition. A bit more detail about expected result or failure behavior would be nice, but the annotations already carry the idempotent and destructive-profile information.

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 input schema already documents both parameters completely (caseId and targetFolderId, with their types and the same-project requirement). The description just restates the folder constraint and adds no extra detail about parameter values, formats, or derived 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Move'), a clear resource ('test case'), and an explicit target ('a different folder within the same project'). It also names the key limitation ('Cross-project moves are not supported'), which distinguishes this tool from any generic update or move operation.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: moving a test case to another folder within the same project. It also explicitly says when not to use it: cross-project moves are not supported. No alternative sibling exists for moving a test case, so no further routing guidance is needed.

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