chemdraw_move_owned

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating operation that is not destructive. The description aligns by stating it creates a 'new native copy' (non-destructive) and adds key behavioral context: it carries owned captions/symbols, requires equal translation for cross-owner curves, and explicitly disclaims automatic manual-drag attachment or collision-free layout. This goes beyond annotations to set expectations about side effects and limitations.

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 two sentences: the first packs the action, scope, and key nuance (cross-owner curves) efficiently; the second adds return value and explicit non-claims. Every clause adds value, front-loads the core behavior, and avoids fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, key behaviors, and limitations, which is strong for a tool with no output schema and nested objects. However, with 5 required parameters and no schema descriptions, an agent might still have questions about expected_source_token and output_dir semantics, and the 'ownership' object structure isn't elaborated. Still, the description is quite complete for the core operation, so a 4 is justified.

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. It explains the core 'moves' parameter (owner_key, delta), mentions the ownership sidecar, and refers to 'ownership' implicitly. However, it does not describe each parameter in detail (e.g., output_dir, expected_source_token), leaving some gaps. The description adds significant meaning for the main complex parameters, so a 4 is appropriate given the 0% coverage.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it moves explicit owners by specifiable deltas in a new native copy, and it enumerates what is carried along (captions, symbols, internal curves). It distinguishes itself from other moving/editing tools by specifying the 'explicit owner' mechanism and the 'new native copy' behavior.

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 moving owned elements with explicit owner definitions) and gives a specific constraint for cross-owner curves. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context includes tools like chemdraw_edit_document and chemdraw_clean, which likely handle broader edits. The lack of explicit 'use X instead' is a minor gap, but the conditional guidance for cross-owner curves is concrete.

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