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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds a real behavioral fact not in the annotations: tiered permission requirements (team builder/team manager/org admin depending on node type). It does not, however, explain what 'move' changes beyond reparenting (e.g. effect on children, ordering, or downstream assignments).

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing parenthetical of role rules is dense but each clause carries distinct information; only minor readability is lost.

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 three-identifier mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization but leaves the core mechanics of the operation (what reparenting means, null-parent handling, impact on child nodes) unexplained, and the 0%-coverage schema means nothing else fills that gap. Marginally adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 0% for three required UUID parameters, and the description supplies no parameter-level meaning: it never explains that nodeId identifies the node being moved or that parentId sets its new location (and that null likely means root). With low coverage the description had to compensate and does not.

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 process landscape node'), which distinguishes it from siblings like updateClarityLandscapeNode (edit properties) and organizeClarityProcessLandscape (bulk layout). It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 sentence lists role preconditions for acting on different node types, which implies who may call it, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as updateClarityLandscapeNode, reorderClarityLandscapeAreas, or organizeClarityProcessLandscape. No when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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