move_device_to_chain

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that Live may override the requested target position by choosing the nearest valid one, and that the response should be consumed via returned device ID and actualPosition. It also signals two modes (plan vs move), although it does not detail side effects or validation failures.

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 sentences, no filler, with the most decision-relevant facts front-loaded. The caveat about Live choosing positions earns its place.

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 9 params and no output schema, the description packs the core workflow (plan or execute), allowed track contexts, nested chains, and the key response field. It relies on the schema for token/hash mechanics, which is acceptable given 89% coverage; only the explicit pinning against move_device is missing.

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?

With 89% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters; the description adds meaningful semantic nuance by saying target position is a best-effort value that Live may adjust and by calling out nested destinations for chains. It also stresses 'exact device,' reinforcing that stable IDs are required.

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 opening sentence states a precise operation—plan or move an exact device into a rack chain—and scopes it to ordinary, Return, or Main tracks and nested destinations. It is clearly distinct from generic move_device or chain inspection siblings.

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?

It identifies the action and scope, so an agent can tell this applies to rack-chain moves across track types. It does not explicitly state when to prefer move_device or a get_* sibling, nor what should trigger a plan vs execute call; that is left to the schema's dryRun/confirmationToken fields.

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