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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the edit-lock check, that WordPress-stripped changes are refused, that a revision is saved, that an undo token is returned, and critically that the call is queued for human approval in Royally so nothing changes until approved. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its positional variants, followed by side effects and the approval gate. The '(site: demo.royalplugins.com)' fragment duplicates the site_id enum and is mild noise, but the rest 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 destructive, non-idempotent block mutation with no output schema, the description covers locking, refusal semantics, revision creation, the undo token return, and the human-approval gate — everything an agent needs to predict behavior and act safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the enum meanings and the wp_get_block_outline path format. The description adds only that the moved block carries its inner blocks and restates the target relationship; it adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource plus scope: 'Move the block at path (with its inner blocks)' to start/end or relative to target_path. The operation is clearly distinct from sibling mutators like wp_update_block_attributes, wp_delete_block, or wp_insert_blocks, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 positional enum cases are explained ('start or end of the post, or before, after or inside the block at target_path'), which implies when each mode applies. However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over wp_insert_blocks or wp_update_block_attributes, and no stated preconditions beyond the schema's note that target_path is required for relative modes.

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