move_issue

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

Despite annotations declaring destructiveHint=false, the description proactively warns that components/versions/projects are cleared by default and that old-queue local fields are removed — exactly the surprising side-effect data-loss context an agent needs, with the moveAllFields escape hatch named. It omits permission/auth requirements and return behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed immediately by the critical side-effect and its mitigation. Every sentence earns its place with zero padding.

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 move tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, default destructive clearing, the keep-fields flag, and local-field removal. It leaves the notif/status-reset flags to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds the useful framing that clearing is the default rather than the option, but it does not cover expand, notify, or initialStatus semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move an issue to a different queue'), which is clear and unambiguous. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bulk_move_issues (singular 'issue' vs bulk), stopping short of naming the alternative explicitly.

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?

Implies usage and gives one conditional hint: use moveAllFields to preserve versions/components/projects. However, it never states when to prefer this over bulk_move_issues or execute_transition, nor any prerequisites, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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