move_elements

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers three critical behavioral facts: (1) the operation is a relative displacement (by a vector), not an absolute move-to-position; (2) the vector is interpreted in meters — a unit convention that could silently cause massive scaling errors if wrong; and (3) the tool refuses to execute without `confirm=true`, explicitly gating a mutating operation on explicit user confirmation. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what happens on refusal (error vs. silent no-op), which prevents a 5. But for a 16-word description, this is substantial.

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?

Two sentences, 16 words, and every single one earns its place. The first sentence front-loads the action ('Move elements') and the displacement details (vector, units), while the second delivers the most operationally critical constraint (confirmation required). There is zero redundancy, no filler, and the structure leads with the most important information. This is a model of concision.

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 mutating operation with 4 parameters (2 required), no annotations, no schema-level descriptions, and a `port` parameter that is completely opaque, this description leaves significant gaps. The most glaring omission is `port` — an AI agent has no way to know if it's needed, what values are valid, or what the default `null` means. The `guids` parameter is assumed self-evident but not confirmed in context, and the behavior on missing/invalid GUIDs is unknown. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but doesn't compensate for the incomplete input contract. The `confirm` gate is also unexplained — does the agent need to set it to true always, or only for bulk operations?

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 description meaningfully enhances the `vector` parameter by giving it structure ({x,y,z}) and units (meters), which is not in the schema at all. It also implicitly documents the `confirm` parameter's purpose (safety gate to prevent accidental moves). However, it completely ignores `guids` (which array elements? element IDs? names?) and `port`, which is highly ambiguous — it could be a network port for an API connection, a design viewport, or something else entirely. Given that this is 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the gaps, leaving a critical parameter undocumented.

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?

"Move elements by a vector {x,y,z} in meters" is a precise verb+resource specification that clearly outpaces any sibling tool. The description differentiates from siblings like delete_elements, create_elements, query_elements, and get_element_data by specifying both the relative nature of the move (by a vector) and the exact structure of that vector ({x,y,z} in meters). This is exactly the kind of clarity that eliminates ambiguity.

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 the tool's purpose (move elements relative to their position) but never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives. The mention of `confirm=true` hints at a workflow (you must pass this to proceed) but doesn't name sibling tools like `manage_selection` or `query_elements` that might be used together or instead. No exclusions or caveats about element types, permissions, or interactivity with selections are given. This is implied usage only, which meets the 'adequate but with clear gaps' bar.

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