tracks_move

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: it returns the new track order and is undoable, and it explains group-joining semantics and the default end-placement when 'before' is omitted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by behavior and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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 simple mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the key missing behavioral details: undoability, return value, group semantics, and default placement. Minor edge cases like moving a track before itself are unaddressed but not essential.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'track' moves as a group with all its members and that 'before' controls joining another track's group, with absence meaning end placement.

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 (move) and resource (track) with precise semantics: moving a group before another track, joining that group, or to the end. No sibling tool performs track reordering, and the description makes the operation unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it through the operation semantics, but never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It gives no prerequisite or triggering context.

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