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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only discloses that a node is moved to a new parent. It does not explain whether children move with the node, whether sibling ordering changes, whether cycles are prevented, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase ('to a different parent node' and 'reorganizing the hierarchy') contributes meaning without repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits key behavioral details such as whether moving is recursive for child nodes, how cycles are handled, and what the result of the move is, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about nodeId, projectId, or newParentId beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a node' and specifies the destination concept ('different parent node'), plus the effect of reorganizing the hierarchy. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling update_node, which might also alter node relationships, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_node or other sibling tools, and no prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions are mentioned. The purpose is implied by the verb 'move', but an agent receives no routing help.

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