vibemk_move_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended effect without mentioning side effects, such as whether the repositioning requires activation (sibling vibemk_activate_changes suggests changes are staged) or that before/after positioning is dependent on target_rule_id.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action verb comes first and every word earns its place. The 'Move rule' segment somewhat restates the tool name, but the clarifying phrase 'Change rule position in ruleset' justifies the sentence, making it efficient though bordering on terse.

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 mutation tool with moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits operational context such as whether changes require activation, how position affects rule precedence, and the dependency between position and target_rule_id.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The schema already documents the position values and target_rule_id's role in before/after positioning; the description adds only the marginal 'in ruleset' framing, which ties the parameters to the domain but does not deepen their meaning.

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 (Move), resource (rule), and effect ('Change rule position in ruleset'), which is clear and not a tautology. It distinguishes itself from move_host/move_folder siblings by resource and from update_rule by the position-specific focus, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus vibemk_update_rule, nor does it explain why rule position matters (e.g., evaluation order/precedence in a ruleset). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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