Move Block

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety envelope is already given. The description adds real value beyond that: it guarantees block id stability, points to append_block for placement semantics, and discloses two hard failure modes (document-root moves and cycles). It doesn't mention atomicity or what happens on a stale expectedRevision, though the schema covers that.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core invariant is front-loaded in the first clause. Every clause carries distinct information (id stability, placement semantics, two rejection cases).

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?

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers the essentials for a mutation: id preservation, placement source, and validation failures. Minor gaps remain around atomicity/revision-conflict behavior, but nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the nested placement object is already documented as 'using append_block placement semantics', so the description's reference to that semantics is largely a repeat. It adds only the id-preservation note tied to blockId, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Move an existing block') plus a key invariant ('without changing its id'), which separates it from update_block and delete_block. It doesn't explicitly contrast with append_block or update_block beyond referencing append_block's placement semantics, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'an existing block' framing and by the rejection rules (no document-root moves, no cycles), which tell the agent what inputs are invalid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. 'to create a new block use append_block').

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