reparent_nodes

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

Annotations indicate the tool is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds that nodes that no longer exist are skipped, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explain other side effects like ordering or property preservation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and including key details (optional index, skip behavior, return value) without superfluous text.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, edge case (skipping nonexistent), and return shape. Missing details like atomicity or permissions, but sufficient for simple use.

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%, so all parameters are already described. The description only restates the optional index, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 nodes to a new parent, optionally at a specific index. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'move_nodes' or 'reorder_nodes' by specifying reparenting and index behavior.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'move_nodes', 'reorder_nodes', or 'group_nodes'. The description does not mention prerequisites or usage context.

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