tldraw_move_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of moving shapes, with no mention of side effects, permissions, undo behavior, bounds checking, or what happens if both absolute and relative parameters are supplied. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and parameter usage. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous words. Every part serves a 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter grouping. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if shapeIds don't exist), return values (e.g., success/failure), and prerequisites (e.g., shapes must be unlocked). The completeness is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to use it reliably without additional context.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds semantic grouping by explaining that deltaX/deltaY are for relative moves and toX/toY for absolute positioning, and implicitly that one set should be used exclusively. This context goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions, aiding correct invocation.

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 states 'Move shapes by delta (relative) or to absolute position,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes between relative and absolute positioning, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tldraw_update_shape_props, which could also affect position, but the focus on movement via deltas or absolute coordinates sets it apart.

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 provides guidance on parameter usage: use deltaX/deltaY for relative moves and toX/toY for absolute positions. This implies when to use each set, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like tldraw_resize_shapes or tldraw_update_shape_props, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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