eda_dmt_project_move_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns a boolean indicating success but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or potential impacts (e.g., whether it moves the project to a team, a folder, or both). The behavior is underspecified.

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 extremely concise (one line), but it is not well-structured. It mixes a raw function signature with a Chinese phrase and a return type note, lacking a clear human-readable summary. The information is minimal and not front-loaded for easy comprehension.

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 tool that moves a project, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'move' means (to a team, to a folder, or both), the required parameters, or any preconditions. There is no output schema, so the return type note is useful but not enough. An agent lacks the context needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description provides the function signature with parameter names and types (projectUuid: string, teamUuid: string, folderUuid?: string), which is not present in the schema. This gives some context about what parameters are expected, but it does not explain the meaning of each parameter or how they relate to the action. The schema itself only defines an 'args' array with empty items, so the description partially compensates but lacks semantic depth.

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 function signature and a Chinese label '移动工程' (move project), which makes the primary action clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'eda_dmt_project_move_project_to_folder', which also moves a project. The description is essentially a restatement of the function name with parameter types, so it adds little beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'move_project_to_folder'. The description only provides the signature, with no explanation of the intended use case, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.

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