file_plotMove a saved rural land plot into a chosen folder or remove it from its current folder using the plot ID and an optional folder ID.
Put a kept plot in a folder, or take it out of the one it is in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plot_id | Yes | A plot id from list_plots or save_plot. | |
| folder_id | No | The folder. Leave out to take the plot out of its folder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral claim is that the plot must be 'kept', which hints at a precondition but is never stated as a hard requirement or explained (what happens to an unsaved plot?). It also does not clarify whether moving overwrites an existing folder assignment, though the idempotentHint implies repeat-safety.
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 covering both directions of the operation with no filler or restated title. Every clause 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 two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the unstated 'kept plot' precondition and what failure looks like, which is minor.
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 both parameters are well documented there, including 'leave out to take the plot out of its folder', which duplicates the description. The description adds the 'kept plot' qualifier but no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('put a kept plot in a folder') and covers the inverse operation too, so an agent understands this is a move/filing operation rather than creation. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. save_plot or update_plot, which likely also take folder assignment), so the differentiation is left partly implicit.
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 two branches of use are stated ('put in a folder' vs 'take it out'), which implies when to omit the folder. However, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (plot must be saved/kept), no statement of when to use this versus save_plot with a folder argument, and no error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.