move_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether the destination must exist, whether the source network must be unlocked, what happens to existing connections or wires, or whether the move is undoable — all key for a mutation tool.

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 single summary sentence is well front-loaded and the whole thing is short. But the Args block is largely low-value restatement plus an irrelevant ctx entry, so it neither wastes much nor earns its space.

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?

A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs the description to do heavy lifting. It does not: no side effects, no failure modes, no return information, and only tautological parameter labels. Substantial gaps remain.

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, but the arg notes are near-tautological: 'node_path: Node path' and 'dest_parent: Destination parent path' restate the names without adding format, path syntax, or constraints (e.g. absolute vs relative paths). The 'ctx: MCP context' entry is framework boilerplate of no use to an agent.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Move a node to a different parent network.' That is clear and actionable. However it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings like rename_node, copy_node, or change_node_type, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and no prerequisites. Nothing tells the agent why it would choose move_node over copy_node plus delete_node, or under what conditions a move is valid.

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