move_node

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

The description discloses that the tool is cycle-safe, meaning the server rejects cycles, and mentions optional position setting. This adds value beyond the absence of annotations, though it does not cover authorization or side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences cover the core purpose, cycle-safety, and optional parameter. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers key behaviors (reparenting, cycle-safety, position). Missing return value specification, but overall sufficient for a move tool.

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 50% (plan_id and position have descriptions). The description clarifies 'position' as order_index and implies plan_id is auto-resolved, but adds nothing for node_id or new_parent_id beyond obvious naming.

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 uses a specific verb 'Reparent' and resource 'node within the same plan', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like delete_node, update_node, etc.

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?

While the description mentions cycle-safety and optional position, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_node or when not to use it. The context is implied but not fully directive.

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