move_nodes

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that nodes without a position are skipped and that the return value is { ok, affected }. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, so the description complements them well.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that immediately convey the core action, edge case, and return format. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple move operation with many sibling tools, the description covers the essential information: operation, parameters, edge case, and return format. It could mention units or that the delta is relative to current position, but it is largely complete.

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% with clear descriptions for dx, dy, and nodeIds. The description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it does mention the skipping behavior relevant to nodeIds. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 action 'Translate nodes by (dx, dy)' and explicitly mentions that nodes without a position are skipped. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resize_nodes or rotate_nodes.

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 for moving nodes by a delta but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exceptions or prerequisites.

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