Move or clone instances

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is undoable ('one undoable step'), and it discloses a critical edge case ('Moving an instance into itself or its own descendant is refused: it silently detaches... and undo does not bring it back'). This is genuine extra information that changes how an agent should call it.

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?

The description is compact (two short paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, mode distinction, and a critical caveat. The critical edge-case warning is placed at the end, clearly separated, which is appropriate since it's a warning rather than primary instruction.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how to switch modes, what happens on an invalid self-move, and that it's undoable. The annotations cover the destructive nature. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the mode semantics ('Set mode: clone to copy instead of move') and tying the 'name' parameter to the clone use case ('optionally renaming it in the same call'). It also explains the 'items' array semantics ('Moves to apply together as one undoable step'). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's core function ('Reparents instances, or clones them into a new parent, as one undoable step') and explicitly differentiates 'move' vs 'clone' modes. It names what it operates on (instances) and the key action (reparent or clone), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create', 'delete', or 'modify'.

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 clear context for when to use clone ('that is how to duplicate something') and implies the main use case for moving. It doesn't explicitly list sibling alternatives or say when NOT to use this tool in favor of others, but the context and mode explanation provide useful guidance.

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