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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the described operation is non-idempotent: calling it again with the same direction should shift the course one more position each time. This contradicts the annotation. The readOnly and destructive hints are consistent, but the idempotency conflict is a serious behavioral inconsistency.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key -1/1 direction mapping. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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?

All three parameters are documented and an output schema exists, but the idempotency contradiction leaves repeated-call behavior ambiguous. Boundary behavior at the first or last collection position is also not addressed, which is relevant for a destructive reorder operation.

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 id, courseId, and direction are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the direction semantics but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Moves'), a resource ('a course'), and the exact positional effect ('one position earlier (-1) or later (1) in a collection'). This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from add/remove collection tools.

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 use case is implied: when a course already in a collection needs to shift by exactly one position. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as add_course_to_collection or remove_course_from_collection.

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