Move Action Plan Section

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

The description explicitly states 'Applies the change and returns the updated action plan section,' clarifying the mutation and return behavior. It goes beyond annotations by detailing failure modes (401, 403, 404) and the default project_id behavior, offering valuable insight into tool execution.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries essential information: operation, defaults, prerequisites, return value, error handling, and API reference. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then expands into usage details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return value. It covers parameter defaults, prerequisite resolution, and error payloads. It could optionally note effects on section ordering or next_section_id usage, but the existing information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds crucial meaning: project_id can be omitted to use a config default, and id must identify an existing record resolved via a list tool. next_section_id is well-described in the schema, so no additional detail is needed.

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 opens with 'Moves the Action Plan Section,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly identifies the operation (move), the resource (action plan section), and the context (within an action plan). The name and title are reinforced, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like move_action_plan_item_within_or_across_sections by targeting a distinct resource.

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?

Provides clear usage context: project_id defaults to config value, id must be resolved from a list tool first, and error scenarios are explained. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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