Transfer custom field to project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. Only states 'Transfer custom field to project' without disclosing side effects (e.g., does the field get removed from original location?), permissions, or other behavioral traits.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the HTTP endpoint, which is less useful than the functional purpose.

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?

The tool has nested parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description provides only the bare action, lacking details about constraints, return values, or behavior changes. It is far from complete for an agent to use effectively.

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%. The description does not explain any parameters (e.g., board_id, id, projectId) beyond noting 'Body: application/json'. The agent receives no semantic help for the nested required fields.

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 the action clearly: transfer a custom field to a project. However, it does not differentiate among sibling tools like weeek_transfer_custom_field_to_project or weeek_transfer_custom_field_to_board, all of which have similar names and descriptions.

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 usage guidance provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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