mover_dispositivo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the action (moves an existing device) and that it's a mutation, but does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., if the device doesn't exist), or whether the operation is reversible. It adds no contradiction, but the transparency is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 concise—two sentences plus an example—with the main action front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy. Every word 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 simple move operation with an output schema available, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., if the device name is invalid or coordinates are out of bounds), nor does it clarify the return value. While the output schema might cover the return, the lack of error-handling guidance leaves a gap.

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. The example 'mover_dispositivo('R1', 300, 150)' implicitly maps 'nombre' to the device name and x/y to the new coordinates, providing concrete usage. It doesn't describe each parameter individually, but the example is sufficient for a simple 3-parameter tool.

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 ('Mueve'), a resource ('dispositivo existente'), and a destination ('nuevas coordenadas en el canvas'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crear_dispositivo (create) or eliminar_dispositivo (delete). The example further reinforces the purpose.

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 provides clear context: it is useful for visually reorganizing the topology, implying it should be used when repositioning devices. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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