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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the description is consistent with that profile. It adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations lack: the permission tier required for each node type (team processes, team proposals, areas), which is real auth-need disclosure. It stops short of saying what happens to the node's existing children or ordering on a move.

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 leads with the action, and the permission clause is dense but information-bearing. Nothing is wasted, though the nested parenthetical is heavy relative to the brevity of the core statement.

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, the annotations carry the safety profile and the description adds auth requirements, which is solid. But with three required params at 0% coverage and no output schema, the description leaves parameter roles and move semantics (e.g., handling of existing children) unspecified, keeping it below fully complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions orgId, nodeId, or parentId. The intent that nodeId is the node being moved and parentId is the destination is only implied, not stated, so neither source documents the three required parameters.

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 (move) and resource (process landscape node), which is clearer than a generic 'update'. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like updateClarityLandscapeNode, reorderClarityLandscapeAreas, or organizeClarityProcessLandscape, so an agent must infer that 'placement' means reparenting from parameters alone.

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 role-based conditions (team builder, team manager, org admin) give context about who may call it and under what node type, which is useful gating information. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance distinguishing this from updateClarityLandscapeNode or the reorder/organize tools.

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