move_nodes

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the edge case that positionless nodes are skipped and the return shape { ok, affected }, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the action, a caveat, and the return value. Every word earns its place, making it concise and 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the operation, inputs, an edge case, and the return format. Without an output schema, mentioning { ok, affected } is valuable. It lacks explicit units or coordinate system details, but these are likely inferred from the Figma context.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with descriptions (dx, dy defaults, nodeIds). The description repeats the dx/dy concept but does not add meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The verb 'Translate' with the resource 'nodes' and delta (dx, dy) clearly specifies a relative movement operation. It is distinct from absolute positioning tools like set_position, but the description does not explicitly name an alternative, so it does not fully differentiate from siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_position or reorder_nodes. The note 'Nodes without a position are skipped' is a behavioral constraint, not a usage recommendation, so the agent lacks direction for tool selection.

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