tracecat_move_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like validation, error handling, or side effects. It only states the action and a recommendation, leaving the agent uninformed about constraints or consequences.

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 two sentences: one for purpose, one for layout recommendation. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and adds practical layout guidance. However, it lacks information about return values or error conditions, though the schema and context signals partially compensate.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by suggesting a layout strategy (e.g., vertical spacing of 160px, horizontal spacing of 320px), which goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Reposition action nodes in the workflow graph.' It uses a specific verb ('reposition') and resource ('action nodes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tracecat_create_action or tracecat_update_action which handle different operations.

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 provides a recommended layout with specific coordinates (e.g., trigger at (500,0), first action y>=300), giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool, e.g., for updating non-position properties of actions.

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