move_node

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description clarifies the operation is purely cosmetic layout with no compile and no property changes, which usefully bounds the mutation surface. It also discloses the return payload (position actually applied), reinforcing idempotency nuance. This adds real value beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

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 packed sentences plus a terse return signature. The scoping constraint is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 7-param cosmetic mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what changes, what doesn't, and the return shape. It is essentially complete; only explicit sibling routing would push it higher.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema including precedence rules (node_position over position_x/position_y, blueprint_path alias). The description adds little parameter-level detail the schema doesn't already carry, so 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 (move) and resource (node) with scope detail (canvas position), and immediately clarifies what it is not (no pin, link, default, type, or compile changes). An agent can distinguish this cosmetic layout operation from graph mutation siblings without opening the 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?

The description implies usage by emphasizing the cosmetic-only nature, which properly routes the agent away from expecting functional graph changes. However, it does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when/when-not conditions against siblings such as move_ik_solver_in_stack or move_keyframe; the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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