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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it clarifies that the block moves unchanged, that column placement is inherited from the anchor block, and that no other page content is affected.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and destination logic, then closes with the side-effect guarantee. No filler.

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 simple mutation with no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description covers action, placement, and side effects adequately. It could say more about error conditions (invalid id, missing anchor) but nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents id, path, after, before, token, and summary with concrete semantics. The description restates the after/before/end-of-page behavior the schema defines but adds no new detail such as ordering conflicts when both are supplied, so 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 specific verb and resource (move one block on a page) with precise scope: reposition 'as it is' relative to another block id or to the page end. The phrases 'as it is' and 'Nothing else on the page changes' implicitly distinguish it from update_block, insert_block, and remove_block.

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 destination mechanics (after/before an id, or end of page, or into a column) imply when the tool applies, but it never explicitly says when to choose move_block over insert_block, update_block, or remove_block, nor states prerequisites such as the block and anchor needing to share a page.

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