move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: the joint-box semantics of the ids, the selectable anchor points, and that each=True operates per object rather than on the combined box. It says nothing about whether this is a mutating/undoable operation, what expected_revision does, or what show returns, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the operation and follow with the each=True modifier. The parenthetical anchor list and ellipsis are slightly noisy but efficient overall; no filler sentences.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the geometric essentials but omits the concurrency parameter (expected_revision), the show flag, and any statement about reversibility or permissions. Adequate for the core operation, incomplete for full correct invocation.

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 all 9 parameters. It explains dx_mm, dy_mm, x_mm, y_mm, anchor, and each reasonably well and ties ids to the 'joint box'. However, show and expected_revision are entirely unexplained, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 (move/place) and resource (the object ids), and goes further by defining two distinct modes: relative translation via (dx_mm, dy_mm) and absolute placement via (x_mm, y_mm) with an anchor point. An agent can tell this apart from a generic 'transform' tool. It never explicitly contrasts itself with reverse siblings like align or distribute, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies dx/dy and x/y can be combined, which is useful usage context, and 'each=True places every object separately' hints at a per-object vs joint-box distinction. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-align/distribute guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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