move_build

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 only says 'Build a Move package' without explaining side effects, whether network access is needed, whether it produces artifacts, or what the return value is. This is insufficient for a tool that likely compiles code and may modify the file system.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without verbose explanations, earning a perfect conciseness score.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a build tool. It does not explain what the build process entails, expected outputs, potential errors, or how this fits into the larger Move development workflow (e.g., building before testing or publishing). The description is too minimal to be fully actionable for an agent.

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 schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage: 'Path to the Move package directory'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate but also does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Build a Move package on IOTA'. The verb 'Build' is specific, the resource 'Move package' is defined, and the platform 'IOTA' adds context. This distinguishes it from siblings like move_test or move_publish_unsigned, which perform different actions on Move packages.

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 implies this is the build step for Move packages, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_test or move_publish_unsigned. There are no exclusions or preconditions mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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