mover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it applies a movement and returns event/state, but does not reveal whether the action is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation-like tool, this is critically insufficient.

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 concise at two sentences, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its brevity because critical information is omitted. The structure is clear, but the lack of substance makes it merely minimal rather than efficiently informative.

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 four parameters with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not explained in the description, the tool definition is incomplete. The description relies on external module documentation (not provided) to explain payloads and types, leaving the agent without necessary context to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters. It only mentions that payload expects JSON per tipo, but does not explain 'tipo', 'actor', 'sesion_id', or 'payload' semantics. The agent gets no help understanding what values are valid or how they interact.

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 states 'Aplica un movimiento a la sesion' (Applies a movement to the session), which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, 'movimiento' is vague and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'reproducir_sesion' or 'procesar_consulta', which might also apply changes. The mention of returning event and state adds purpose context but lacks specificity about what movements are possible.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or reference sibling tools. The pointer to the module docstring for payload details is not a usage guideline; it is external documentation that the agent may not have access to.

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