move_device

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the device moves within a chain or across tracks, but says nothing about failure conditions, position bounds, or whether the source chain closes gaps after removal. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 no filler; the parenthetical mapping to the parameter name is efficient. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but for a 7-parameter mutation with two required fields and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the device-identification and positioning semantics entirely to guesswork. Given the parameter complexity, it is substantially under-explained.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and required-package defaults unmentioned in the schema, so the description must compensate and barely does. It names only target_track_index; device_name vs device_index precedence, what track_type/target_track_type accept, and whether new_position is zero-based or chain-relative are all unexplained.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("reorder a device", "move it to another track") that clearly separates it from insert_device, delete_device, and set_device_on. It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 bar for differentiation.

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 implicitly defines two usage modes: reorder within a chain, or relocate to another track via target_track_index. It never states prerequisites, what happens when target_track_index is omitted, or why an agent would prefer this over a delete+insert sequence.

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