ppt_move_container

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the atomicity and alignment-preservation behavior, which is valuable. But it omits other important traits such as whether the operation is reversible, effect on non-container objects, or the shape of the response. It doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but the disclosure is partial.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise and free of fluff, every word adds meaning. It could be slightly longer to cover parameters, but as written it is well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain target specification, prerequisites, or error cases. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing guidance on how to call the tool.

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% and the description does not explain any parameter. An agent cannot determine the meaning of x vs dx, how to obtain container_id, or the role of presentation_path. This is a critical gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 a specific action ('Move') applied to a specific resource ('logical container (card)') and includes the distinguishing detail that all nested child shapes move atomically. This differentiates it from siblings like ppt_move_shape (which moves a single shape) and ppt_resize_container (which resizes).

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 implies usage: it is for moving containers with nested children while preserving alignment, which hints at when to choose it over ppt_move_shape. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer the differentiation from the sibling list.

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