set_parent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying operations (appendChild/insertChild) and the keepPosition nuance for auto-layout parents, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects on the previous parent, potential errors (e.g., cycles, invalid parent), or whether other node properties are preserved.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences cover implementation details and special behaviors without redundancy or fluff.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the core operation, the role of the index parameter, and the keepPosition behavior. It falls short on edge cases like invalid parent relationships or error handling, but is otherwise sufficient for a reparent operation.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that index uses insertChild (vs append) and that keepPosition is ignored for auto-layout parents. This goes beyond the schema, which only lists the parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Move a node so it becomes a child of another node (reparent).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_node (which likely moves position) by focusing on the parent-child relationship. Implementation details (appendChild/insertChild) further clarify the behavior.

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 use for reparenting and mentions that an index triggers insertChild while keepPosition works differently with auto-layout parents. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like move_node or reorder_children, so no exclusions are stated.

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