move_control

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lacks details on side effects, required permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid control_id), and whether changes are reversible. The impact of omitting optional parameters is not explained.

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 short and to the point, with a clear first sentence followed by an Args section. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be integrated into the prose for even greater conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (per context signals), the description does not mention return values or success/failure indicators. For a mutation tool, it lacks context on what happens after the move (e.g., confirmation, error on invalid tab_index). The description is incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 must compensate. It adds basic meaning for each parameter (control_id, position, span, tab_index) but lacks specifics like array format (0-based indexing?), constraints (e.g., valid ranges), or behavior when parameters are null. The description is minimal but functional.

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 actions: reposition, resize, or move a control to another tab. It uses specific verbs and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_control, remove_control, and update_control.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_control. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., control must exist) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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