move_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: source area becomes transparent, pixels outside canvas are discarded, and fully transparent source pixels do not overwrite. This gives the agent a good understanding of side effects and edge cases. It could mention undo behavior or permissions, but the core transparency is strong.

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 concise, using two paragraphs: the first explains behavior, the second lists parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given 9 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the operation and parameter semantics well. It explains what happens to source and destination pixels. It lacks information about return values, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable. Minor gap: no mention of any prerequisites or validation.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It includes an Args section explaining all 9 parameters (filename, layer_name, frame_index, x, y, width, height, dest_x, dest_y) with clear context. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple titles and types.

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 clearly states 'Cut a rectangular region of pixels and paste it at a new position,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like copy_region (copy without cut) and erase_region (erase only). Additional details about coordinates, source transparency, and pixel discarding further clarify the purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., copy_region for copying). It implies use for moving a region but lacks guidance on scenarios or exclusions. The context is clear but not comparative.

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