reparent_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the action without mentioning that the node is removed from its old parent, whether the new parent must exist, what happens to the node's position, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a structural 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 sentence that directly states the action and target. It is free of unnecessary words, front-loaded, and efficient, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description would need to explain the semantics of reparenting, any validation rules, and the effect on the old parent. It does none of this, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain how 'path' and 'new_parent' correspond to the node and its intended parent. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already shows, failing to compensate for the lack of property descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'reparent' and identifies the resource 'node' and the target 'new parent', making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_node, delete_node, and move_node, though it does not explicitly contrast with move_node to clarify the difference between moving and reparenting.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use reparent_node versus alternatives such as move_node or set_node_properties. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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