move_dynamic_page_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Moves a row to a new position,' which conveys the core mutation but omits any side effects, constraints, or return behavior. It does not mention whether it preserves other row data, how out-of-bound positions are handled, or if any permissions are needed.

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 short sentence, so it avoids waste. However, it is underspecified to the point of minimal information, which is not effective conciseness. It could be improved with a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage. The description is a bare statement of action and does not explain return values, error handling, or the meaning of 'position' in context. For a mutation tool with several parameters, this is severely incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It provides no explanation of row_id, position, folder_url, token, or cookie. The parameter names offer some hints, but the description does not clarify key semantics like the format or range of 'position' or the role of 'folder_url'.

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 the action clearly ('Moves a row') and implies the target resource is a row in a dynamic page, especially given the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings because no other sibling tool is a move operation, but it lacks explicit context that it operates on a 'dynamic page row' and what 'position' means in that context.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether it can be used across dynamic pages, or scenarios where create/patch would be more appropriate. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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