fluig_process_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It correctly labels the tool as a WRITE operation and highlights the destructive card replacement behavior. However, it does not mention other side effects (e.g., triggers events, permission requirements) or whether the operation can be undone. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the critical 'WRITE' tag. Every word serves a purpose—no fluff, no redundancy. It is maximally concise while still conveying essential information.

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 covers the key danger (card replacement) and a prerequisite (call take first). The schema handles parameter details, and there is no output schema, so return format is not expected. While it explains 'save and move', it could briefly describe the outcome (e.g., instance transitions to next state) but overall it provides sufficient context for a tool with this complexity.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds significant value for 'cardData' by emphasizing it replaces the entire card and must include all surviving fields. For other parameters, the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it is a WRITE operation that saves and moves an existing instance. It uses specific verbs ('save', 'move') and resource ('existing instance'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like fluig_process_take (taking a task) and fluig_process_start (starting a new instance).

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Call fluig_process_take first if the task belongs to a pool.' It also warns that cardData replaces the card entirely, instructing to send every field that must survive. This helps the agent decide when and how to use the tool, though alternatives are not exhaustively listed.

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