Move Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the mutating nature, default append behavior, precedence of placement modes, and the internal fractional-indexing mechanism so the agent knows it never needs to construct positions manually. However, it doesn't disclose edge-case behaviors: what happens when multiple placement parameters are passed together, or whether cycle prevention exists when moving a page into its own descendant.

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?

Roughly 120 words, purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, with a scannable bullet list for the three placement modes. The fractional-indexing paragraph earns its place by telling the agent not to hand-construct positions — a genuine failure-mode prevention. No sentence is wasted.

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?

All parameter usage modes, the default behavior, and their precedence are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The remaining gaps are moderate edge cases: behavior under conflicting parameters (e.g., after plus before, or parent_page_id plus a sibling from the old parent) and cycle prevention when nesting a page into its own subtree.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by mapping parent_page_id to the 'nest' mode, after/before to the 'reorder' mode, clarifying that after/before refer to siblings, and establishing a precedence order among the parameters. It also explains the default behavior of omitting all placement parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Moves or reorders a page.' It immediately sets the mechanism ('Say where it should go; the position is computed') and centers on page position, which clearly separates it from siblings like update_page and update_page_content that handle content or properties.

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 gives explicit context for the three placement modes in order of preference — nest via parent_page_id, reorder via after/before, or default to appending at the end of the current parent. It also justifies using this tool over hand-computing positions by explaining fractional indexing. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the position-focused framing makes the distinction clear.

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