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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false, but the description adds real operational context beyond them: attached arrows follow, a frame brings its contents, moving one group member moves the group, and locked items are unaffected. These are exactly the side effects an agent must anticipate before calling a bulk mutation.

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, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the consequences that matter. Slight redundancy in 'in one call' and the run-on opening sentence keep it from being maximally tight, but there is no filler.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema and a nested moves array, the description covers the key behavioral semantics (group/frame/locked handling) an agent needs. It stops short of describing the response or how partial failures are reported, which an agent would still want for a 200-item batch.

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 50% – only boardId is documented in the schema. The description compensates partially by explaining that x/y is the new top-left corner and width/height are optional, but it omits units, the 20–20000 size bounds, the 200-item batch cap, and partial-failure semantics, so it does not fully offset the coverage gap.

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 precise verb pair (move or resize) plus the resource (items on a board) and the exact geometric semantics (new top-left corner, optional width/height). This is specific enough that an agent can separate it from content-oriented siblings such as update_block, edit_block, or delete_items without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies batch usage and the behavioral rules hint at when side effects apply, but the description never states when to choose this tool over a sibling, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the board must exist or items be unlocked). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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