Move elements

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses the gating confirmation flag, the active-window database scoping rule, and a concrete enumeration of refusal reasons (another view's, hidden layer, not reserved in Teamwork, locked, hotlinked module, not found). It also describes the result partitioning (requested/moved/not_moved with GUIDs/active_window), which is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the confirmation gate, then refusal conditions, then return shape. Dense but each sentence carries information; the final return-format sentence is the weakest since an output schema exists.

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 destructive, multi-parameter mutation with a nested vector argument, it covers the confirmation requirement, scoping constraints, and failure modes well. It redundantly restates return fields that an output schema already defines, and leaves the port parameter unexplained, keeping it just below fully complete.

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% and vector is an opaque additionalProperties object in the schema, so the description carries real weight: it specifies the vector shape and unit (x,y,z meters) and the semantics of confirm=true. guids and port are only implicitly covered, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap, but it adds substantial meaning over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource plus the exact parameterization semantics: "Move elements by a vector {x,y,z} in meters." That is far more informative than the name/title alone and distinguishes it from siblings like set_element_data or create_elements. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases where a different move mechanism applies, so it misses the top tier.

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?

It states a clear precondition ("Refuses without confirm=true") and defines the operational context in which the tool applies (elements in the active window's database), which effectively tells the agent when the tool will and won't act. It does not name competing siblings or draw explicit use-versus-avoid boundaries, so it falls short of a 5.

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