Move parking positions

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the coordinate convention (stored left-half pixels, right half mirrored), that the whole operation is a single undo step, and that changes are not persisted until save. It omits error behavior and return value, which keeps it below a 5.

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 compact sentences with the affected targets front-loaded, followed by the coordinate model, undo semantics, and persistence note. No filler, though the parenthetical about mirrored right halves is dense and could be easier to parse.

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 mutation scope, undo atomicity, and persistence, which is the critical part. It still leaves unspecified what is returned, how invalid sector/piece/position values are handled, and defaults for dx/dy.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it explains that dx/dy are pixel offsets in left-half coordinates and that the three item variants correspond to sectors, pieces, and positions. It still leaves the identifier type of sector/piece/position ambiguous (index vs id) and does not say what happens when the optional dx/dy are omitted.

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 (moves) and enumerates the exact resource kinds affected: parking sectors with all their bands, background pieces, and car image positions. This implicitly separates it from siblings like move_items or move_energy, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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: 'Unsaved until save' tells the agent a save must follow, and a parking-specific move tool implies use for parking layout rather than general items. There is no explicit when-to-use versus move_items/align_items/distribute_items, and no stated preconditions.

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