workflowy_move_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move') but lacks details on permissions required, whether the move is reversible, effects on child nodes, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not address critical aspects like error handling or dependencies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'node_id' and 'parent_id' implicitly but does not explain their formats, what 'null' parent_id means (e.g., moving to root), or the 'position' parameter's purpose and allowed values. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure.

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') and resource ('a WorkFlowy node'), specifying the destination ('to a new parent'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'workflowy_create_single_node' or 'workflowy_delete_node' by focusing on relocation rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'workflowy_update_node' which might also affect node positioning.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., node existence), exclusions (e.g., moving to invalid parents), or comparisons with sibling tools like 'workflowy_update_node' that might handle node modifications. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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