move_node

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits beyond the tool name. It merely restates the name and adds 'position', but does not mention side effects, reversibility, coordinate context, or any requirements. This is essentially a tautology and provides no additional value.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. No extraneous details are present.

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?

Despite simple parameters, the description lacks critical context: it doesn't specify whether coordinates are absolute or relative to a parent, whether it operates on the current document, or what the resulting behavior is on child nodes. No annotations or output schema exist to fill these gaps, making the description incomplete for a mutation 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 description coverage is 100%: x, y, and nodeId each have descriptive text. The description adds no extra meaning beyond saying 'new position', which maps to x/y but does not elaborate on format or coordinate space. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 node to a new position in Figma' clearly states the action (move) and target (node), with 'position' implying x/y coordinates later confirmed by the schema. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like resize_node and clone_node, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from set_parent or reorder_children, which also involve moving in a hierarchical sense.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, coordinate system, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for moving a node spatially, but the description does not state this explicitly or address alternatives.

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