Move an HTML node to a new position relative to another node in the same file, using a revision check to prevent stale edits.
Move a node relative to another node in the same file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | HTML file id. | |
| node_id | Yes | Node to move. | |
| position | Yes | One of first, last, before, after. | |
| parent_id | Yes | Destination node id. | |
| expected_rev | Yes | Revision returned by your most recent read. Stale revisions refuse; read again. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a mutation, whether it is reversible, what happens to the node's existing children, or that expected_rev is a concurrency guard (that detail lives only in the schema). For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is padded and the core action leads immediately.
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?
Five required parameters, a mutation operation, no annotations, and no output schema means the description should explain more: the interaction between position and parent_id, the destructive/irreversible nature of the move, and the stale-revision refusal behavior. As-is it is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 100%, so every parameter (file_id, node_id, parent_id, position, expected_rev) is documented in the schema itself. The description only loosely frames parent_id/position as a move 'relative to another node' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 resource (node) with the scoping constraint 'relative to another node in the same file'. That distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like web_remove or web_insert_section, though no sibling is named 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as web_insert_section or web_remove, nor on prerequisites. The only hint is the phrase 'in the same file', which constrains scope but does not route the agent between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.