move_visual

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral nuances. It does not explain whether x/y are absolute coordinates or offsets, what units are used, the meaning of null values, or whether moving the visual affects layout or other elements. With zero annotation coverage, the description fails to carry the burden of behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that immediately states the verb ('Move') and target ('existing visual'), followed by the key parameters. There is no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the core action and names x/y/z, but omits critical details like coordinate system, units, null semantics, prerequisites, and relationships to similar tools. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

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?

The description explicitly names x, y, and z order, which maps directly to those parameters and adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the coordinate system, units, or behavior when values are null. The required identifiers (reportSessionId, pageName, visualName) are not elaborated, though their names are somewhat self-explanatory. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only minimal additional insight.

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 clearly states the action ('Move'), the resource ('an existing visual'), and the specific changes ('new x/y' and optional 'z order'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like resize_visual or align_visuals, and the mention of x/y plus z order adds precision.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_visual_position or set_visual_z_order. It only states what the tool does, without any context or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for selecting it over similar positioning tools.

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