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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful mutation semantics — that published pages only get an unpublished latest revision and the live page stays public — but it does not describe the response shape or what happens to surrounding blocks' indices when one moves.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the workflow constraints. It is efficient, though the publish guidance is somewhat repetitive across two long sentences that could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description does cover the crucial workflow caveats for a mutation on a live page. The main gap is the undocumented editToken parameter, which an agent needs to understand to invoke the tool successfully.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full load. It only explains toIndex ('new zero-based index'), leaving blockId, pageId, and especially editToken — apparently an auth/authorization token — completely undefined in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Move a block to a new zero-based index in the page main slot'), and the scope qualifier ('main slot') further anchors what is being reordered. It is trivially distinguishable from block_add, block_update, and block_delete, and it names the publish siblings it must not be combined with.

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: do not call page_publish in the same turn, stop and tell the user the draft was updated, and wait for an explicit user request before publishing. It also states the negative case for page_unpublish ('the live page should stay public; only unpublish when the user explicitly asks'). Nothing is left to inference.

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