setClarityLandscapeNodePlacementMove a process landscape node (team manager or above for team processes; organization admin for areas)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgId | Yes | ||
| nodeId | Yes | ||
| parentId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds authorization requirements (team manager or above; organization admin for areas), which is useful beyond the annotations, but it does not explain the operational impact such as whether child nodes move with the node or the meaning of a null parentId.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Move', and contains no redundancy. The permission details are integrated efficiently without bloating the text.
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 mutation tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover crucial hierarchy implications (e.g., whether subtree moves with node, constraints on parentId such as cannot be a descendant, or the behavior when parentId is null). The annotations mitigate some uncertainty, but the operational semantics remain underspecified.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the parameters. The property names (orgId, nodeId, parentId) are suggestive, but the description fails to clarify that parentId is the new parent, that null likely means moving to root, or the role of orgId. This leaves agents to infer critical parameter semantics.
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 uses the specific verb 'Move' and identifies the resource as a 'process landscape node', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like createClarityLandscapeNode, deleteClarityLandscapeNode, and updateClarityLandscapeNode. The parenthetical adds permission context, further clarifying its scope.
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 implies usage for repositioning landscape nodes and notes required permissions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify the distinction from updateClarityLandscapeNode or whether this tool should be used only for reparenting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.