move_to_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that a device moved into a wiring closet lands on its rack or table, but says nothing about reversibility, error conditions, or what happens to existing placement.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and follow with the wiring-closet nuance. Minimal waste, though the closing detail partially duplicates the 'into' schema description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both target types and the notable placement rule. It is nearly complete, missing only the mutual-exclusivity rule for device vs location and any error behavior.

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 80%, so the schema already documents 'into', 'device', 'location' and 'x_percent'. The description largely restates that content (destination path, device-by-name, location-by-path, wiring-closet landing) rather than adding new semantics such as coordinate ranges or what happens when both/neither of device and location are supplied.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resources (a device or a whole location) plus the domain (physical workspace), with a concrete example path. It does not name or differentiate against the sibling move_device, which does similar work for devices, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied through the example ('for example a switch into Home City/Corporate Office/Main Wiring Closet'). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over move_device, and no statement of prerequisites.

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