set_cel_position

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the cel's image is moved to a position, implying mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, bounds checking, immediate effect, or side effects. The minimal description leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details. It qualifies as 'appropriately sized' for a simple action, but the structure is flat with no breakdown of parameters or context. For 5 required parameters, a short sentence is insufficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what a cel is, coordinate system, error conditions, or the effect on other cels. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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 has 5 parameters with titles only, and the description adds no information beyond that. It does not explain what x and y represent (e.g., pixel coordinates), how frame and layer identify the cel, or what filename refers to. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but fails completely.

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 identifies the action (Move) and resource (cel's image) along with the target (position (x, y) within the canvas). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_cel, delete_cel, set_cel_opacity, etc., which have different purposes.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., cel must exist), or when not to use it (e.g., if the cel is locked). The description does not help the agent choose between this and other position-manipulation tools like move_layer.

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