Move issue to epic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the team-managed vs company-managed difference and explains the correct removal path. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what happens if an issue is already assigned to a different epic.

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 sentences, all informative: the core action, the project-type nuance, and the removal alternative. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the action, the project-type nuance, and the removal alternative. It is slightly incomplete because it does not cover permissions or response behavior, but it is strong enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 both epicIdOrKey and issueKeys with examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the operation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add issues to an epic.' It also clarifies the team-managed parent behavior, which distinguishes this action from a generic update_issue call. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use update_issue instead: to remove an issue from an epic, with exact field payloads for each project style. It also provides project-type context with 'On team-managed projects this sets the issue's parent instead.' This gives clear routing to alternatives.

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