move_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the null-to-top-level behavior and the not-found error condition, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects on existing folder membership, or whether moving to the same folder is a no-op.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds necessary detail: destination semantics, null handling, and error behavior.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, destination semantics, and error condition. It could mention the return value or whether the move is immediate, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds key meaning: folderId accepts a string to target a folder or null to target the top level, and mentions a not-found error for invalid IDs. The id parameter is only implicitly identified as the project ID, but 'Move a project' plus the parameter name makes that reasonably clear.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Move'), the resource ('a project'), and the target ('a different folder or to the top level'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling move_task and from create/edit/delete project tools.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool is for and how to express the two possible destinations (folder vs top level). It does not explicitly name alternatives like move_task for tasks, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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