elements_reparent

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating it rejects cycles and ancestor-descendant selections and preserves source document order. However, it does not disclose what specifically gets destroyed, whether the move is reversible, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by key rejection behavior. No redundant or filler text.

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 destructive mutation with 5 required parameters, 0% schema documentation, and an output schema that handles return values, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter meanings and usage alternatives, leaving the agent without enough context to call the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 required parameters. The description only loosely implies that 'parentId' is the group/layer and 'ids' are the elements; it says nothing about expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency), workspaceId, or path.

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 ('Moves') and resource ('bounded SVG elements under one existing group or layer in source document order'), making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like elements_group by specifying an existing parent, though it does not name alternative tools.

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 gives rejection conditions (cycles, ancestor-descendant selections) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like elements_group or elements_transform. No prerequisites or contexts for choosing it are provided.

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