move_device

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) establish that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds real value beyond those flags: the plan-then-confirm flow, the autonomy of Live to pick the nearest valid position, and the instruction to read actualPosition and the new device ID from the result. This is useful operational context, though it stops short of describing error conditions.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary purpose leads, and the second sentence adds the key behavioral nuance and result-reading instruction. Slightly more could be said about the confirmation flow, but it is efficient and well-ordered.

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 7-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the plan/confirm workflow and return values. It does mention reading actualPosition and the new device ID, but does not detail the structure of the plan result, the error cases, or the exact interaction between dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken. Adequate but with a notable gap for a tool this parameter-heavy.

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 each of the 7 parameters is well documented (e.g., planHash is 'Hash returned by the matching dry run'). The description adds only marginal meaning, mainly clarifying the Live-autonomy nuance around targetPosition. With full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not substantially compensate 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair (plan or reorder a device) with an explicit scope ('within its current ordinary, Return, Main, or rack chain'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling move_device_to_chain, which moves devices between chains, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 sets the scope to within-chain moves and implies a two-phase dry-run/confirm workflow ('Plan or reorder' plus 'Live may choose the nearest valid position'). It does not, however, explicitly name move_device_to_chain as the alternative for cross-chain moves, leaving that routing inference to the agent.

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