Move elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that: it discloses the undo-step grouping, group-suspension semantics, which elements are skipped with actionable errors (locked, hidden layers, hotlinked, outside Teamwork workspace), and the copy=true variant. The only gap is that the `copy` parameter appears in the description but not in the schema, which an agent cannot act on structurally.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the two usage modes, then densely packed with behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries operational information, though the long return-shape enumeration makes it heavier than it needs to be for a description (an output schema would have been a better home).

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by documenting both return shapes (per-item results with newGuid/copy/warning/error, and the per-operation wrapper for `moves`). Combined with the nested moves/vector/elements schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: the z component is framed as vertical movement with a pointer to elevate_elements, the elements+vector vs moves distinction is spelled out, and the copy=true result shape is described. It stops short of explaining includeGroupMembers in the description, but the schema covers that.

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?

States a specific verb (moves) and resource (elements of ANY type, enumerated: walls, slabs, objects, zones, lines, dimensions) with the exact mechanism (displacement vector). It explicitly distinguishes itself from elevate_elements for pure vertical moves, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: pass `elements`+`vector` for one common offset, or `moves` for independent moves in a single undo step. It also names the alternative for vertical-only movement (elevate_elements) and explains secondary behaviors (windows/doors follow host wall) that affect the choice.

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