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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the whole journey is validated before saving, and the step id must come from reading the journey first. It stops short of describing failure modes or response details, but adds meaningful operational insight.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and validation behavior. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 moderate-complexity mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and validation behavior adequately. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what the call returns or whether the move affects only adjacent steps, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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 80%, so the schema itself already documents site_id, step_id, user_goal, and journey_id well. The description reinforces the step_id source ("Read the journey first for the step id") but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond the schema; the 'direction' enum is self-explanatory as up/down.

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 states a specific verb ("Move") and resource ("journey step") with a precise scope ("up or down within its current path"). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_journey_step, remove_journey_step, and update_journey_step, which perform different operations.

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?

It provides a procedural prerequisite ("Read the journey first for the step id") and a validation note, giving implied context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_journey_step for editing step content, nor does it name any exclusions.

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