move_resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so much of the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing that children move with the resource and that the operation can be a pure reorder, which tells the agent about the cascading effect of the call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, target, and the two things it changes. Every clause earns its place, and the parenthetical about children is the most important detail delivered inline.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with fully documented schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the subtree cascade and the reorder capability. Minor gaps remain (behavior when 'before' and 'after' conflict, ordering relative to a new parent), but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so 'new_parent', 'before'/'after', and 'project' are all documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'to another parent and/or position among its siblings' usefully frames how those parameters combine (parent optional, position optional), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is right.

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 ('Move') and resource, plus the two distinct effects: reparenting and sibling reordering. It implicitly separates itself from update_resource by focusing on location rather than content, but it never names an alternative, so sibling differentiation is only inferred.

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 description ('move ... to another parent and/or position'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer this over update_resource, which a reader might assume could also change parents. Callers must infer the boundary themselves.

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