move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic action. It does not mention whether the order is immediate or queued, whether obstacles or invalid coordinates are handled, whether the unit must be owned/controllable, or what result the agent should expect.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action and destination are front-loaded, and every word contributes useful information.

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 3-parameter move command with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what the tool does, which unit it affects, and what the destination coordinates mean. Some behavioral details are missing, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely invoke it correctly from this description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by mapping x/y to 'pixel coordinates' and unit_id to 'specified unit,' which goes beyond bare integer names. However, it lacks details such as coordinate system origin, allowed ranges, or unit ownership requirements.

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 target resource ('specified unit'), and the destination ('pixel coordinates (x, y)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attack, gather, stop, and hold, making the tool's role 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attack, gather, or stop. The name implies movement for repositioning, but there is no explicit context, precondition, or exclusion to help an agent choose it confidently.

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