blueprint_node_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that moving a node also triggers 'compile and save', which is a significant side effect. However, it does not elaborate on failure modes or whether the operation is reversible, leaving some gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 that is entirely on-topic and front-loaded. It conveys the core action and side effects without any redundant or irrelevant wording, making it highly concise and well structured.

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?

The description adequately covers the main purpose and side effects for a relatively simple tool, but lacks completeness in some areas: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist), what happens on failure, or the return value. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, these gaps prevent a higher score, though the description is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 only 50%, with graph_name and node_guid lacking descriptions. The description does not compensate for these missing parameter explanations; it only restates the action ('Move a node to a new graph position') without clarifying what each parameter represents. The schema already covers position and blueprint_path, so the description adds no new parameter semantics.

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 primary action: 'Move a node to a new graph position', using a specific verb and resource. It also adds the distinct side effects 'compile and save', which differentiates it from sibling tools like blueprint_node_add or blueprint_node_set_enabled. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage when repositioning a node in a graph, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blueprint_node_set_enabled or blueprint_compile. There are no stated exclusions or comparisons to siblings, so the context is implied rather than explicit.

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