set_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: 'Preserves the node's absolute position' and 'each provided x/y coordinate overrides that axis relative to the new container' disclose the non-obvious positioning contract. It falls short only in not mentioning edge behaviors such as invalid-parent handling, index insertion semantics, or irreversibility, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly 30 words, with the core operation front-loaded and the crucial position-preservation detail second. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most complex aspect — the coordinate override semantics — and the schema covers the remaining parameter details. Minor gaps include no mention of return value or failure/error behavior, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that x/y override the preserved absolute position per axis, which clarifies the interaction between position preservation and the optional coordinates. This enriches the meaning of x and y beyond the schema's 'Optional X position relative to the new container'.

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 specific action — 'Move a node into a new parent node' — identifying both the verb and the resource, and scopes the operation to reparenting (section/frame/group). This distinguishes it from the sibling move_node, which implies repositioning rather than changing parentage. The phrase 'Preserves the node's absolute position' adds a precise semantic that further characterizes what this tool does beyond its name.

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 intended scenario (reparenting a node into a container) is clear from the first sentence, so usage is implied but not stated as directives. However, the description never names alternatives like move_node or states when not to use this tool (e.g., when only repositioning within the same parent is needed). No explicit when/when-not guidance exists.

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