Move Update Set Capture

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

With annotations only declaring readOnly/safe-operation flags, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses validation refusals, the cross-application and duplicate-target constraints, and a non-obvious side effect (the reason is appended to the capture's comments). The refusal on a second identical call also explains the idempotentHint=false annotation.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the refusal conditions and side effect. Every clause carries operational information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation itself, the preconditions for success, the failure modes, and the persistent side effect (comment appended) plus the read-back. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: source_set and target_set must both be In progress, the target must be non-Default and belong to the same application, and reason becomes a comment on the capture. Only the instance alias parameter goes unmentioned.

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 and resource with scope: "Move one capture (sys_update_xml) from one In progress set to another In progress, non-Default set of its own application, then read it back." The singular "one capture" implicitly separates it from the sibling move_update_set_records, though no sibling is named 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?

Gives clear preconditions and exclusions: refused when a newer capture of the same record exists elsewhere, when the target already holds one, or across applications. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. move_update_set_records for batches), so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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