Move Block (drag-and-drop)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the If-Match concurrency semantics, the multi-step fetch-and-reorder behavior, and the renderRole caveat. It doesn't explicitly state side effects or rollback behavior but the mutation is clear. The render tier note is valuable behavioral context that annotations don't cover.

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?

Three tightly-packed sentences with zero waste. Every sentence carries meaning: the operation mechanics, the concurrency approach, the render caveat. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently layered with implementation and caveat details.

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 compound mutating operation with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the internal multi-step behavior, the concurrency mechanism (If-Match), and the important render-tier nuance. The only minor gap is not describing what the return value is or error conditions, but for a move operation this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the 'position' object shape (index, before, after) and clarifies the semantic for blockId. However, it doesn't detail portalRef/pageRef meanings, and the before/after semantics are implied but not fully elaborated. The description partially compensates for the zero schema coverage but could be more explicit about how before/after resolve into indexes.

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+resource ('Move one block to a new position') and details the position options (index, before/after another blockId). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like kilango_reorder_blocks by explaining it handles the multi-step fetch+permutation+reorder flow. The reference to 'render tier' and 'widget renderRole' adds domain-specific clarity.

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 clearly explains the mechanics (fetches current order, computes permutation, calls reorder with If-Match). It provides important context about when visual result may differ from array index. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like reorder_blocks or state when to use this vs that sibling, which would merit a 5.

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