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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about how the move works (after/before, front/end). It doesn't disclose potential side effects like reordering implications or error handling, but given annotations, the added value is moderate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and mechanism. It includes all essential information without redundancy or fluff. Each sentence contributes value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity (moving items with after/before and front/end logic), and the description covers the core usage scenarios. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed in the description. It doesn't mention edge cases like invalid codes or same-position moves, but for an agent, the provided guidance is sufficient to invoke correctly in common cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'after' and 'before' are mutually exclusive, and explains how to reference the first/last field for front/end moves. This enriches understanding of the parameters, especially the interplay between code, after, and before.

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 identifies the verb 'move' and the resource 'existing item (question, page break or display block)' and specifies the mechanism (by code, referencing another field's code). It also differentiates from sibling tools like add_question, update_question, and delete_question by focusing on reordering, and gives explicit front/end usage. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage instructions: choose either after or before, and explains how to move to the front (before the first field's code) or end (after the last field's code). It implies the tool is for repositioning existing items, which distinguishes it from add/update/delete. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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