move_widget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and two constraints, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or behavioral details beyond those constraints. It lacks information on whether the move is reversible, if original widget is preserved, or any feedback on success/failure.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loads the action. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured to improve readability. Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the complexity of a move operation in a hierarchy, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter details, usage context, and does not fully leverage the existence of an output schema. The constraints are helpful but do not provide complete guidance for an AI agent.

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 none of the 4 parameters are described in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any of the parameters (widget_blueprint_path, widget_name, new_parent_name, index). It adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 the action (move), the object (widget), and the destination (different parent panel), along with explicit constraints (cannot move root or into own descendants). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename, duplicate, or remove.

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 guides usage by stating constraints (no root/descendant moves), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_widget or reorganizing via other means. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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