move_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and parameter zero-based indexing, but omits any side effects, edge cases (e.g., invalid indices, behavior when new_index equals device_index), whether the reorder is destructive or reversible, or any permission requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious operation.

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 concise, with a single leading sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean, clearly formatted list of arguments. There is no unnecessary information or repetition. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it easy to quickly parse.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter operation, but the description lacks key contextual details. It does not mention potential failure modes, requirements (e.g., track/device must exist), or the meaning of the return value. While an output schema exists, the absence of annotations and the ambiguous new_index semantics leave the description incomplete for robust usage.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It gives a brief explanation for each argument (e.g., 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based target position in the device chain'). This adds value beyond the schema, but the semantics are minimal and leave ambiguity about the exact reorder behavior (e.g., whether new_index is before or after removal). It does not fully compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 states a specific action: 'Move a device to a new position in a track's device chain.' This clearly identifies the verb (move), the resource (device in a track's chain), and the scope. The tool name 'move_device' is directly reflected, and no sibling tool performs the same operation, so it is well differentiated.

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 usage for reordering devices in a track's device chain but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no context about prerequisites or scenarios. The usage is only implied by the action described.

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