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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds nothing about side effects such as whether other tiles shift positions, what happens with an out-of-range index, or whether moving a tile requires auth.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that states action, target, and destination semantics compactly.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with an annotation-supplied safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it omits the reordering side effect on other tiles and index-boundary behavior, which matter for a positional mutation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that position is 0-based in the tile list, which meaningfully interprets the integer/minimum-0 schema, but it says nothing about the 'id' parameter or out-of-range behavior.

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 ('Move a tile') and adds the destination semantics ('to a 0-based position in the tile list'). The verb distinguishes it from add_tile, remove_tile, and update_tile, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no hint about how this differs from update_tile, which an agent could reasonably confuse with a move/reorder operation.

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