roam_move_block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds context about being a wrapper around batch actions and the importance of graph-specific guidelines. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether the move is atomic, if child blocks are moved recursively, or the exact impact on references. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the action, the second frames it as a wrapper alternative, and the third provides a critical workflow prerequisite. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how it relates to sibling tools, and the required pre-use step. The output schema handles return values, and annotations handle safety traits, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the description does not need to explain each parameter. It does add a high-level semantic cue ('different parent or position') that maps to parent_uid and order, but this is already explicit in the schema. The description adds marginal value over the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Move a block to a new location' which is a specific verb+resource action, and immediately clarifies the scope: 'different parent or position'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly calling itself a 'convenience wrapper around roam_process_batch_actions for single block moves', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use this tool—for single block moves—by positioning it as a wrapper around the batch action tool, implying batch actions would be used for multiple moves. It also includes an explicit prerequisite: 'call roam_get_guidelines for this graph once per session', with a brief rationale. This is direct usage guidance.

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