move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation mutates a piece's pose and that units are metres and degrees, but it does not explain coordinate frames, side effects, required key semantics, reversibility, or response behavior.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the core delta concept, though brevity comes at the cost of needed detail.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits essential context such as what 'piece' refers to, how the key parameter selects it, coordinate system conventions, and any constraints or results of the operation.

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 by explaining the parameters. It only hints that dx/dy/dz are in metres and dyaw in degrees via 'metres and degrees', but it does not clarify the role of 'key' or precisely map each parameter to the delta.

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 clear verb ('move'), a resource ('a piece'), and the manner of movement ('by a delta in metres and degrees'). The word 'delta' distinguishes it from absolute positioning tools like set_pose, though sibling tools are not explicitly named.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_pose, place, or undo. The delta wording implies incremental adjustment, but there are no explicit use conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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