moveDevice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It honestly communicates that the tool mutates the device's position, which is the primary behavior. However, it does not disclose whether connections/links are preserved, whether the old position is fully overwritten, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is adequate but minimal.

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 a single focused sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to immediately understand the purpose.

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 tool with three required parameters and no nested/output schemas, the description combined with the schema is sufficient for basic invocation. It lacks details about error cases or return behavior, but those are not needed to choose or call 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?

The input schema already provides direct descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the canvas context and does not clarify coordinate-system details, bounds, or the relationship between x and y beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb ('Move'), a resource ('a device'), and a target ('new coordinates on the logical workspace canvas'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like adding, removing, renaming, configuring, or powering devices.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: whenever a device needs to be repositioned on the logical workspace. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list contains no alternative move/reposition tool, so the intended use is clear and unambiguous enough.

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