Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral context (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, edgeCaseWarnings), so the description's bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('content: Array of objects...'), which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations—the description's 'Moves' action aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it could mention more about side effects or constraints beyond what annotations cover.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The two sentences are efficient: the first explains the action and parameter options, the second describes the return format. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for returns). Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary 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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with batch operations), rich annotations (covering safety, idempotency, edge cases), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It adds return format details, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could better integrate with sibling tools (e.g., hinting at when to use vs. 'reorder_node') to be fully comprehensive for an AI agent.

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 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., nodeId format, x/y ranges). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only noting the choice between 'move' (single) and 'moves' (array). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context like examples of valid nodeId formats or practical usage tips.

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 the tool 'Moves one or more nodes to a new position in Figma', providing a specific verb ('Moves') and resource ('nodes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'reorder_node' (which likely changes stacking order) and 'resize_node' (which changes size rather than position), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about what distinguishes it from similar tools.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning it accepts 'either a single move config or an array of configs', which helps understand when to use each parameter format. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'reorder_node' or 'set_matrix_transform', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for when moving nodes is appropriate versus other transformations.

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