move_to_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but conveys only that a mutation occurs ('Move'). It does not disclose what happens when index is omitted, whether forbidden moves (into itself or a descendant) are blocked, or whether auto-layout parents reflow — all key behaviors for a tree-restructuring operation.

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 eight-word sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place and no information is buried.

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 hierarchy-changing mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the behavior of the optional index parameter, valid parent types, and forbidden moves (node into itself or its own descendant) unexplained, so an agent cannot reliably predict the result of a call.

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% and each parameter (index, nodeId, parentId) already carries a usable description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the move relationship already visible in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Move a node') plus a destination ('a different parent frame'), which clearly signals a re-parenting operation and distinguishes it from reorder_node (same-parent reordering) and delete_node. It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't specify which container types qualify as valid parents, and the boundary with reorder_node is not addressed.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its close siblings reorder_node, group_nodes, or modify_node. The optional index parameter even blurs the boundary with reorder_node, since this tool can also position a node within its new parent, and the description does nothing to resolve that ambiguity.

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