Move Forms question

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

With annotations already declaring the non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, the description still adds non-obvious behavior: the underlying API silently returns 200 while ignoring a bare position, and display-condition consistency is enforced server-side so a move above a depended-on question is rejected. Silent-failure and rejection semantics are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and return value are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a dense but high-value caveat block. The backtick-heavy formatting and em-dash parentheticals add some visual noise, but every sentence carries real 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?

For a mutation tool with a nested body, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the critical traps (bare position silently ignored, condition-dependency rejection) and the return value. Auth/permission requirements are the only notable omission, which annotations partially cover.

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%, and the body.page schema field already states that a target is required when position is set because the API ignores a bare position. The description largely restates this coupling rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Reposition a question on the form'), scopes it to target page + position, and discloses the return value (the moved question's id). It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as forms_questions_update, leaving the move-vs-edit distinction to inference, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'reposition' but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus forms_questions_update or forms_questions_create. It does supply actionable in-call guidance (pass a page target explicitly, e.g. page=1) and notes server-side validation, which raises it above a bare 2.

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