map_move_sticky

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 honestly discloses a key behavioral trait: the operation preserves text and color, which is not obvious from the tool name. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid id), whether the move is absolute or relative, or any permissions. For a simple move tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object, includes the essential target (canvas coordinates), and adds a purposeful clarification about text/color preservation. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 low-complexity tool with full schema parameter coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the action, the target resource, and the key invariant (no text/color change). It could mention prerequisites like 'the sticky note must exist', but that is implied by the operation and aligns with sibling conventions. Sibling map_move_node exists but is for a different resource type, so no confusion.

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%, so each parameter (id, x, y) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional semantic details about parameters, merely restating that they are new canvas coordinates. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('sticky note'), clearly stating the operation is to new canvas coordinates. The clause 'without changing its text or color' distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_update_sticky and map_move_node, eliminating ambiguity about what the tool does and does not modify.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to reposition a sticky note while preserving its text/color. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as map_update_sticky for changing content, but the 'without changing' phrasing provides useful exclusion context. Lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance, but the implied usage is clear.

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