path_node_move

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already declares the mutation safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — relative commands are normalized to absolute SVG — but says nothing about revision conflicts, permission needs, or whether prior geometry is recoverable.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It does omit the delimiter between its two clauses slightly awkwardly, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a 6-parameter destructive mutation the description is thin: the concurrency-control parameter is unexplained and no sibling differentiation is offered. An agent could invoke it but not confidently choose it over path_node_edit.

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 6 required parameters, including a nested point object, so the description must carry the load. It explains only one parameter's semantics ('zero-based segment index') and leaves id, path, point, workspaceId, and especially the opaque expectedRevision token entirely undocumented.

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+resource with scope: 'Moves one path endpoint by zero-based segment index,' and clarifies it does not accept raw SVG path data. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling path_node_edit, leaving the agent to guess which node-editing tool applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'without accepting raw SVG path data' faintly signals a contrast with raw-path tools, but the agent gets no routing rule against path_node_edit, path_modify, or paths_flatten.

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