move_organizational_unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that contents are preserved and OU relationships are maintained during the move, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits critical details like required permissions, whether the move is reversible, and error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses an example effectively. The final sentence 'Maintains OU relationships during move' is slightly redundant with 'preserving contents' but overall the text is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior (preservation of contents and relationships) but lacks important context such as permission requirements, failure modes, and whether moves across domains are allowed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters fully. The example reinforces the usage of ou_dn and new_parent_dn but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Move an OU to a new parent.' It clearly conveys the action, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like modify_organizational_unit, which might also alter OU properties.

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?

An example demonstrates how to call the tool, implying usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus modify_organizational_unit or other OU tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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