Move / scale an element

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing side effects: absolute mode replaces the entire transform and omitted scales default to 1, not current values; relative mode multiplies onto existing transform and scaling around origin shifts the element. It also notes where to find geometry (get_page). No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true is consistent with 'REPLACES the whole transform'). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context agents need.

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 dense but every sentence is purposeful. It front-loads the key action and mode distinction, then details the crucial differences between absolute and relative, and ends with a pointer to get_page. There is no filler; the length is justified by the complexity of the behavior.

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 tool with two modes and interlinked parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: defaults, scaling/translation semantics, and the origin-shift effect. It also refers to get_page for geometry, covering the likely missing context. Since there is no output schema, and the operation is well-scoped, nothing critical is left unexplained.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic nuance: it explains how defaults interact in absolute mode (scale defaults to 1, not current), and how relative scaling behaves (multiplies current size, around origin causing shift). This is beyond the schema's simple parameter descriptions and directly influences correct calls.

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 explicitly states the action ('Moves and/or scales a page element') and the underlying API (batchUpdate updatePageElementTransform). It clarifies the two operating modes (absolute vs relative) and the semantics of each, which distinguishes it from other tools that create or delete elements. The agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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?

It provides concrete guidance: for a simple move, prefer relative translate only, and it explains the implications of absolute vs relative modes, including the pitfall that absolute moves reset scale. It also points to get_page for geometry, helping the agent reason about inputs. This is explicit when-to-use and how-to-use guidance, exceeding mere context.

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