ass_move_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that the selection is removed first, that target_index is clamped (large values append), the exact return shape, and that the operation is snapshot-backed (implying reversibility via undo). It omits auth/permission requirements, which is a minor gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the detail sentences are dense but earned. The return-value listing is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the target_index clarification is high-value and not wasteful.

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 trickiest element (target_index semantics) is fully covered and return values are described, but with 0% schema coverage across three parameters the unexplained doc_id and selection leave an agent guessing on required inputs. Mutation behavior is otherwise adequately conveyed.

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. It thoroughly documents target_index (0-based, indexed against the remaining lines, clamped/appends), but says nothing about doc_id or the format/shape of the required 'selection' parameter. Partial compensation only.

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 the selected lines to another position in the line order.' This is unambiguous and inherently distinct from sibling operations like add/delete/duplicate/sort lines. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting a sibling, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself (you move lines when you want to reorder them), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance. Given siblings like ass_sort_lines and ass_duplicate_lines that also reorder/relocate lines, some routing guidance would help.

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