Move / Reparent / Reorder Node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the take-specific edge case ('the Main take itself cannot be moved'), the mutual-exclusivity validation rule, and the return behavior ('Returns the node's new canonical handle so follow-up edits remain stable'). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is genuinely rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the first states operations, the second states scope and the kind-matching constraint, the third states the one-of rule, and the fourth covers the take edge case plus return value. Purpose is front-loaded with no filler, though it is slightly dense.

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 compensates by stating the return value (canonical handle). Given the tool's complexity — 5 params, a one-of rule, and multi-kind support — all critical operational facts are present. The remaining gap is error/failure behavior for invalid moves (e.g., what happens if the Main take is targeted), which would round it out.

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% with each of the 5 properties described, so baseline is 3. The description adds value the schema cannot express: the mutual-exclusivity constraint across parent/before/after/to_root ('Exactly one destination field must be provided') and the per-kind semantics of to_root for takes. This exceeds baseline but the schema still does substantial heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Reparent a node under a new parent, promote it to the top of its hierarchy, or reorder it relative to a sibling') and scopes it to objects/takes/render_data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like create_entity, remove_entity, and clone_entity, which create or destroy rather than restructure hierarchy, and from set_transform, which changes position rather than hierarchy.

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 context: the supported node kinds, the constraint that siblings/parents must share the moved node's kind, and the one-of destination rule. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the operational constraints effectively bound when the tool applies. A named exclusion would push this to 5.

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