Move a suite placement to a different folder path using its entry ID.
Move one suite placement (by its entry id, see list_suites) to a different folder path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| entryId | Yes | ||
| project | No | Path to the project root (same folder the side panel connects to). Defaults to the EASYSPEC_PROJECT environment variable if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the move is destructive, requires permissions, whether the original placement is removed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action efficiently, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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?
Without an output schema, annotations, or detailed parameter explanations, the description leaves out crucial context: what a suite placement is, how to obtain an entry id, what path expects, and potential side effects. An agent would need to inspect list_suites or other tools to fill gaps.
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 only 33% (project has a description; entryId and path do not). The description adds minimal meaning by indicating entryId identifies a suite placement and path is the destination, but it does not specify path format (relative/absolute), constraints, or examples. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 states a specific verb ('Move'), a resource ('suite placement'), and the target ('different folder path'). It references list_suites for the entry id, which distinguishes it from add/remove operations. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.
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 implies the entry id comes from list_suites, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_to_suite or remove_from_suite. There is no guidance on exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria beyond the inherent action of moving.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.