moveDocumentParts

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it elaborates on idempotentHint=false by explaining that a repeat may be safe, a no-op, or rejected, adds the server-side-action nature of the call, and discloses the dry_run preview behavior including that previews come back as error-flagged results. This is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so there is no contradiction.

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?

Purpose and effect are front-loaded, but the first sentence is a long multi-clause construction, and the closing clause about 'tools with a typed output schema' is conditionally scoped generic boilerplate for a tool that has no output schema, adding confusion rather than value. Compact overall, but not every clause 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 mutation with no output schema and a nested requestBody, the description covers the non-obvious parts an agent needs: idempotency uncertainty, the preview mechanism, and how to interpret error-flagged preview results. It does not describe the success response shape, which would have helped given the absence of an output schema, but the fully documented parameters soften that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents all six parameters. The description's mention of `dry_run: true` reinforces the dry_run parameter's purpose but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own field description.

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 opening phrase 'Moves a Work Item Document Part' states a specific verb and resource, immediately distinguishable from the many get/post/delete Part tools. The 'Effect: triggers a server-side action rather than a plain resource creation' clarifies it is not a simple POST like postDocumentParts. However, it never explicitly contrasts with moveToDocument/moveFromDocument/moveWorkItemsToDocument, leaving sibling differentiation largely implicit.

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 gives a strong practical invocation tip ('set `dry_run: true` first') and warns about the consequences of repetition, which an agent can act on. But it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this one, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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