zulip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: notifications are sent to both old and new threads, the destination topic is auto-created if nonexistent, and stream parameter is optional for same-stream moves. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers essential operational behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, behavioral notes, usage guidance, args, returns) and front-loads the core functionality. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the notification explanation is slightly verbose), but overall it's efficiently organized with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-parameter move operation with propagation modes), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and acknowledges the output schema ('Returns: Confirmation or error message'), making it fully adequate for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters in detail. It clarifies message_id's role as anchor for propagate modes, topic auto-creation behavior, stream's optional nature for cross-channel moves, and propagate_mode options with their specific meanings. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('move message(s)') and resources ('to a different topic and/or stream'), distinguishing it from siblings like edit_message (which modifies content) or send_message (which creates new messages). It precisely defines the operation's scope.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Before calling, confirm the exact source and destination with the user using clickable Zulip links to avoid mistakes.' It also distinguishes usage scenarios through propagate_mode options (change_one, change_later, change_all), offering clear alternatives within the tool itself.

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