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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known, but the description adds no behavioral details such as how positions are calculated, whether the operation is reversible, or side effects on other queue groups. No contradiction with annotations, but no additional context.

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?

Single short sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions. It omits return values, effects on existing queue order, and any error conditions. Incomplete for safe invocation.

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 of parameters is 0%, and the description only hints that 'to' refers to a new position. It does not define the semantics of 'to' (e.g., zero-based index, relative vs absolute) or confirm group_id is the identifier, leaving the agent to infer.

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 clearly identifies the action (move) and resource (queue group) with a specific outcome (new position). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reorder_queue_item and move_queue_item by specifying 'queue group'.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus reorder_queue_item or move_queue_item, nor any prerequisites or scenarios.

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