move_elementsRelocate Archicad elements by providing a vector in meters; requires explicit confirmation to apply the change.
Move elements by a vector {x,y,z} in meters. Refuses without confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| guids | Yes | ||
| vector | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as non-read-only and destructive, so the description's additional context is valuable: the tool refuses without confirm=true and the vector is interpreted in meters. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.
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 short sentences deliver the core behavior and the critical safety condition without filler. The wording is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
The description is mostly sufficient for a basic correct call: supply guids, a vector with x/y/z in meters, and confirm=true. It omits alternatives and optional port details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.
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 for undocumented parameters. It explains vector's structure and confirm's role, but guids and port remain unexplained beyond their schema names and types, leaving significant gaps.
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 operation—moving elements via a relative vector—and adds useful detail about units and the confirmation requirement. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling mutation tools such as create_elements or delete_elements.
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, whether it applies to selected elements, or what prerequisites exist. The confirmation note is operational behavior, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.