translate_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it spells out the closure rule, arrow re-attachment vs re-binding, the exactly-once invariant, result reporting, and the concurrency guard with its two exemptions (person's elements, departed agents). It omits permission/auth requirements and any failure modes beyond refusal, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the following sentences each add a distinct rule (closure, arrows, single-move, reporting, refusal). It is dense near the limit of readability but no sentence is redundant.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behavior and even describes the return content (count moved, closure-added ids, refusal lines). Gaps are limited to permissions and error semantics.

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 75% (dx, dy, force documented), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces what force means and why the guard exists, and implicitly explains what the ids represent (groups, frames, bound arrows), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move elements by a delta') and immediately characterizes the operation through its closure semantics, so an agent can tell it is a geometric transform rather than a generic mutation. It never names a sibling like update_elements to draw the boundary explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 its use case (relocating elements together with everything bound to them) and gives a concrete condition for the force flag, but it never states when to prefer this tool over update_elements or add_elements/delete_elements. The alternative-selection guidance is left to inference.

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