move_tree_to_strategy

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation is lightweight and preserves original tree IDs, which rules out a copy-style side effect. But it does not state whether the tree is removed from its previous strategy, whether the operation is reversible, or whether additional consequences such as auth or updated references apply.

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 entire definition is one short sentence, with the main action front-loaded and the key behavioral qualifier in a compact parenthetical. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented input schema and no output schema, the core call is adequately described. However, because annotations are absent, side effects such as what happens to the previous strategy association are left implicit, and no alternative tool is named to help an agent route around edge cases.

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%, with 'treeId' described as the ID of the tree to move and 'strategyIdOrName' as the ID or name of the target strategy. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Move'), the resource ('a tree'), and the destination ('a strategy'), and the parenthetical 'lightweight operation that preserves original tree IDs' helps distinguish it from a clone operation. This is a specific, unambiguous verb+resource statement. It does not need to name siblings to be clearly scoped.

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?

Because the description says 'lightweight operation that preserves original tree IDs,' an agent can infer this is preferable when it wants to avoid a heavy clone. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of clone_tree_to_strategy or move_subtree, and it provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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