sd_move_nodes

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

The description adds the constraint of one to one hundred nodes and the requirement for explicit identification, which are useful behavioral details. However, annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat those. It does not disclose error behavior or prerequisites beyond node existence.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous words. It efficiently captures the core behavior and key constraints.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations clarifying mutability and idempotency, the description provides a baseline of understanding: what the tool does, a count limit, and the requirement for explicit node references. However, it lacks any explanation of the graph parameter or how to structure the move specifications, making it incomplete for a tool with nested parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 description gives minimal parameter insight: 'one to one hundred' hints at the size of the moves array, and 'explicitly identified nodes' maps to node_identifier. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain the graph parameter or the structure of each move (node_identifier + position). The schema carries the burden, but the description does not compensate adequately.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('nodes'), and provides a concrete scope ('one to one hundred'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sd_create_node or sd_delete_nodes. The mention of 'explicitly identified nodes' reinforces that this is about repositioning existing nodes.

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. It does not mention that this is the tool for repositioning nodes, nor does it exclude cases like using sd_apply_graph_patch for bulk position changes. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be chosen.

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