modifiers-move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the move is destructive (e.g., does it reorder the stack? does it replace an existing modifier at the destination index?), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the index is out of bounds. The description only states the action without any side effects or constraints, leaving the agent to guess.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence of six words. It is front-loaded with the action and object. However, it is perhaps too sparse, omitting necessary behavioral details, but for conciseness alone, it earns a high score because it wastes no words. The compactness is appropriate given the tool's narrow function.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of the move on the modifier stack, potential errors, or default behavior of the 'object' parameter. It lacks critical context that would help an agent safely invoke the tool, such as what happens if the index is already occupied or out of range. The sibling tools like modifiers-set or modifiers-list provide more context, but this description alone is insufficient for reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema's property titles are minimal ('Name of the modifier to move', 'Destination stack index'). The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. However, the parameter names and titles are relatively clear: 'name' is the modifier identifier, 'index' is the destination stack position, and 'object' defaults to the active object. The description adds no extra value, so it's baseline 3 for low coverage.

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 'Move a modifier to a stack index' clearly states the action (move) and the resource (modifier), and specifies the target (a stack index). It is distinct from siblings like modifiers-add, modifiers-remove, modifiers-set, modifiers-copy, and modifiers-apply, which handle other modifier operations. The verb 'move' and the resource 'modifier' are specific, though it doesn't explicitly mention which stack (e.g., object's modifier stack), but the context implies 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the modifier must exist, the stack index must be valid), nor does it contrast with other modifier operations like reordering via modifiers-set or copying. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters, which is insufficient.

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