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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context on top: which operations are rejected and that the tool 'writes one new draft version' rather than mutating live content. It stops short of covering recoverability (undo) or what the response returns, but the safety profile is well conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its two modes, then constraints, then alternatives — a sensible order. The position-value recap slightly duplicates the schema, and the single dense paragraph could be split for scanability, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: modes, validation rules, and the draft-version write. The remaining gap is what the agent gets back and whether the move can be reversed via undo, which would round it out.

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 80% and already documents all five parameters, so baseline would be a 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by spelling out the position vocabulary ('start' / 'end' / { after_id }) inline and by stating that target_parent_id must live in the same page/element tree as node_id — a server-side constraint the schema only hints at.

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 specific verb+resource (move a node) and immediately scopes it to two modes: reorder within the current parent or re-parent within the SAME tree. It also self-describes as 'the safe reordering primitive,' which separates it cleanly from insert_nodes and add_page named later.

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 exclusions and alternatives: cross-tree moves should use add_page (with copy_of) / insert_nodes. It also enumerates the rejected cases (root node, self/descendant, cross-tree), so the agent knows both when to use it and when the call will fail.

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