reparent_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether children move along with the instance, whether the old parent reference is cleared, whether cycles or invalid parents cause errors, or what the call returns on success or failure. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though so terse that conciseness shades into under-specification.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits too much: the 'path' parameter's meaning, the effect on children, and failure behavior are all unstated. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently predict the outcome.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'newParent' has a schema description and example, but 'path' (the instance being moved) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no format or semantics beyond the word 'parent', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('an instance') with the target destination ('to a new parent'), so the action is immediately unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as duplicate_instance or create_instance, but the operation is distinct enough that an agent can place it.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new instance under a target parent instead of moving an existing one). No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are given; the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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