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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral constraints beyond them: ROOT/page_home immovability and the subtree-cycle guard. It does not mention what happens to sibling ordering, whether position is honored on failure, or permissions required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the restriction. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so return behavior is unstated, but the annotations carry the safety profile and the description supplies the key operational limits an agent needs before calling. For a 4-parameter mutation tool this is nearly complete, with only return/error behavior left implicit.

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% and each parameter (id, nodeId, position, newParentId) is documented in the schema itself, so the description need not restate them. It adds no extra syntactic or ordering semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource plus scope ('a node and its subtree') and the effect ('to a new parent'), which is more informative than the title. It distinguishes the move operation from sibling mutators like insert_node or delete_node implicitly via the verb, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool cannot be used ('Can't move ROOT or page_home, or into its own subtree'), giving concrete negative conditions. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or describing prerequisites such as required permissions or a prior select_site call.

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