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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does well by disclosing that edits commit back to the same design_id, that git tracks the diff, that coordinates are not validated against panel bounds, and that the heavy background image is only moved if explicitly named. It could add more about error conditions or irreversibility, but versioning implies some safety net.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a motivating use case and caveats. It is somewhat wordy and includes an opaque phrase ('Apply it onto the product with the browser courier'), but the structure is logical and most content earns its place.

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 complex edit tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key contextual gaps: when to use it, what it does to versioning, what it does not validate, and the special behavior around the background image. Combined with the highly detailed input schema, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 86%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description does add useful operating context ('the caller owns the coordinates', 'the heavy background image is never moved unless you name its id'), but it does not need to—and does not—expand on the individual parameter formats beyond what the schema provides. This is a solid baseline-3 case.

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 first sentence states a precise operation: 'Move a group of elements together and/or resize elements; commit a new version.' It goes on to explain the exact problem it solves — moving a multi-layer block as one rigid object — and clearly distinguishes itself from add_design_element by noting it does not validate against panel bounds.

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 gives a concrete scenario ('the Designer can move only one layer at a time... drifts out of alignment') and names an explicit alternative: 'Nothing is validated against panel bounds here (unlike add_design_element)'. It also warns about the background image not being moved unless named, helping the agent decide when and how to call the tool.

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