flux_move

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: moving a piece from source to destination with two constraints. However, it does not describe whether the source square becomes empty, whether turns are validated, what happens on invalid moves, or if the operation is irreversible.

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 well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and then clarifies the mapping and constraints. There is no filler or repetition, and it fits the tool's simple interface.

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 the minimal schema (no descriptions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides just enough to understand the move operation. It still omits important context such as board dimensions, coordinate system, and behavior on invalid input, which limits completeness for an agent operating in an unfamiliar environment.

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 schema provides only numeric types. The description adds meaning by labeling fromR/fromC as source ('your piece') and r/c as destination ('empty cell within 2 steps'). It does not explain coordinate system, board bounds, or what '2 steps' means (e.g., Manhattan vs Euclidean).

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 opens with the imperative 'Make your move,' which clearly indicates this is the action to move a game piece. It specifies the source coordinates (fromR/fromC) and destination (r/c) and adds a constraint (empty cell within 2 steps). It is distinct from sibling tools like flux_resign or flux_state.

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 gives clear context: this is for moving your piece to an empty cell within 2 steps. It effectively tells an agent when to use the tool (when it is your turn to move), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as flux_resign.

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