move_node

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 does not explain whether moving a node preserves its connections, whether it is destructive (e.g., could break references), or what happens to internal links. The behavior is not disclosed beyond the basic move operation.

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, with a clear one-line summary followed by an Args block. It is front-loaded with the action, and each sentence earns its place. The Args block is minimal but does not waste words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It lacks info on return values, error conditions, and behavioral consequences (e.g., is the move atomic? does it affect descendants?). An agent needs more to call it safely.

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 mentions 'node_path' and 'dest_parent' with brief descriptions, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but it does not define the format (e.g., full path vs relative) or constraints. The baseline is low due to zero coverage, but the description adds only marginal value.

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 the action ('Move a node to a different parent network') with a specific verb and resource, and it mentions the key parameters (node_path, dest_parent). It is distinguishable from siblings like 'copy_node' and 'rename_node' based on the verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 (e.g., copy_node for duplicating vs moving). It does not mention any prerequisites or restrictions, such as whether the destination must exist or whether moving affects connections. The context is clear only as an operation, but no alternative is named.

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