Transfer custom field to project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether the transfer removes the field from the original location, any side effects, or required permissions). The HTTP method POST is implied but not explained.

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 short (two sentences) but repeats the HTTP endpoint unnecessarily. It could be reduced to just 'Transfer custom field to project.' without the URL, making it more concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and nested objects, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the transfer behavior, required inputs, or expected outcomes.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It only mentions 'Body: application/json' without explaining the purpose of body.projectId, path.project_id, or path.id. The schema shows two nested objects with required fields but no semantic context.

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 'Transfer custom field to project' which is a verb+resource but lacks specificity. The meaning of 'transfer' is unclear—does it move the field from one project to another or copy it? Among many sibling transfer tools (e.g., transfer to board, transfer to task manager), no differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., weeek_transfer_custom_field_to_board, weeek_transfer_global_custom_field_to_project). No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.

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