move

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that this is a DIMSE push to a remote node, which explains the open-world nature, but it says nothing about transfer duration, whether the source archive queues the job, or failure modes when the destination is unreachable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that names the operation and its effect. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so the description needn't explain returns or parameters. What is missing is disambiguation from the other data-movement siblings and any note that the transfer is asynchronous or depends on the destination being configured.

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%, so all five parameters (including the constraint that sop_instance_uid requires series_uid) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning such as UID format expectations or how 'destination' AE titles are resolved, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('send data to another DICOM node') and names the protocol operation (C-MOVE), which is far more informative than the bare name 'move'. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely related siblings 'retrieve', 'transfer', and 'store', which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over 'retrieve', 'transfer', or 'store', which all involve moving DICOM data between nodes. The schema hints that 'node' comes from list_nodes, but the description itself offers no preconditions or alternatives.

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