Move list items into a named section or clear their section assignment. Provide listId and item_ids; set section to null to remove grouping.
Move list items into a named section (or clear it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listId | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| section | No | Section name to assign (null/omit to clear the section). | |
| item_ids | Yes | List-item ids to move. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / item_ids / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / item_ids / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Input schema / properties / section / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / section / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds only that items are reassigned to a section, without covering scope of the change, idempotency, or whether section-only moves affect ordering — minimal added context beyond annotations.
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 with no filler; the core action and its dual mode are conveyed immediately.
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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description is thin — it never mentions listId or frameId scope, nor what happens to items in other sections. It is adequate to identify the tool but not complete for confident 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 coverage is 50%: the 'section' and 'item_ids' parameters are already documented in the schema, including the null/omit-to-clear semantics, so the description duplicates rather than extends that. The undocumented 'listId' and 'frameId' parameters are not addressed in the description, leaving a partial gap it does not compensate for.
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 ('list items') plus the target concept ('a named section'), including the clear-section variant. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as skylight_move_list_item or skylight_update_list_item, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 parenthetical '(or clear it)' implies the two usage modes, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus skylight_move_list_item, skylight_update_list_item, or skylight_clear_list. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.