move_actors_to_level

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description goes further by disclosing the clipboard-backed selection mutation side effect and that both levels' packages get dirtied, with a remediation (save_level after). It stops short of stating the return/rollback behavior under move_all_or_fail failures, but the side-effect disclosure is well beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then warnings and return shape; every sentence carries information (usage, idempotency, clipboard warning, preconditions, dirty-package follow-up). Dense but not padded, though the trailing Returns line pushes length up.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description documents the return object field-by-field (requested, moved_count, already_in_level, target_level, success, note). Combined with the precondition and side-effect warnings, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents actor_names, target_level, and move_all_or_fail, including the label-accepting nuance and the persistent/short-name convention. The description adds only the idempotency framing around already_in_level, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (relocate existing editor-world actors into another sub-level) and immediately frames the scope: persistent or a loaded streaming level. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling set_current_level, so an agent can tell what this does versus its nearest alternative without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (rescuing actors that got spawned into the wrong level), why set_current_level is insufficient (it only prevents the problem going forward), and states the preconditions that must hold (destination loaded AND unlocked). Exclusions and the alternative are both named.

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