move_subtree

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by mentioning cycle detection, depth validation, and dry-run mode for safe preview, which reveals important safety and validation behavior beyond the basic move operation. It stops short of describing failure responses or reversibility, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by valuable behavioral details. Every clause adds information the agent needs.

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 moderately complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and validation behaviors, but leaves gaps: what happens when cycle detection fails, whether the operation is atomic, and what the return value is. Adequate, but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the 4 parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that dry-run mode is a safe preview, which is helpful but not essential beyond the schema's own parameter description. No parameters are left 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?

The description opens with 'Move a subtree to a new parent within the same tree', which states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_tree_to_strategy (which implies moving across strategies) and add_child, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 phrase 'within the same tree' gives clear context and implicitly warns against using this tool for cross-tree moves, which is what move_tree_to_strategy or clone_tree_to_strategy would handle. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the constraint is enough for reasonable tool selection.

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