Move ICC Plus entity

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

The annotations only provide false hints for readOnly, idempotent, and destructive, so they do not characterize this as a mutation. The description steps in by explicitly stating the move effect and the 'repair stored indices' side effect. It also narrows scope to the current container, adding useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not discuss effects on sibling ordering or reversibility, but core behavior is transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence containing no filler. Every phrase adds value: the verb, the container scope, and the index-repair effect are all present with zero waste.

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-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, an 11-word description is materially incomplete. An agent would not know how reference and type relate, what dry_run does, when validation_policy matters, or whether prerequisites like an open project apply.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 7 parameters. It only weakly implies that 'position' is the target index and 'reference' identifies the entity. It says nothing about type, dry_run, expected_revision, or validation_policy, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Move'), a precise resource ('an entity within its current ordered container'), and a relevant side effect ('repair stored indices'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like create_entity, update_entity, or delete_entity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as update_entity and duplicate_entity exist, but the description never explains what makes move the right choice or mentions any conditions/exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and context.

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