Move navigator item

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, destructive, not read-only), so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the read-back shape ({ok, id, tree, parent, path}) in the absence of an output schema, plus positional semantics. It does not explain permission requirements or failure modes, but the additions are meaningful.

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 constraints, no filler sentences. The final sentence carries the return-value info that would otherwise be missing given no output schema, so it 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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, scope constraint, id-discovery path, positioning, and return shape. Only minor gaps (permissions, error behavior) remain, and annotations already carry the safety signal.

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 100% and each parameter is documented in the schema. The description reinforces the ordering behavior of `parent`/`after` (first child vs right after the sibling), but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource (moves a navigator item) with concrete examples (view into View Map folder, layout into a subset) and a stated scope (one tree: View Map / Layout Book). It clearly distinguishes itself from cross-tree siblings like clone_project_map_item_to_view_map.

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?

States the operating constraint (works inside one tree) and routes the agent to get_navigator_tree for obtaining ids. It doesn't explicitly exclude the cross-tree clone alternative, but the 'one tree' framing implies the boundary clearly.

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