move_child

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent, but the description adds significant behavior beyond them: citations and notes are preserved, placement respects birth order, and the new family is written first so failure leaves the child in both families rather than neither. That is unusually rich transactional and failure-mode disclosure.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences give only the rationale and failure behavior needed to use the tool correctly.

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 destructive move operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral concerns: preservation of citations/notes, birth-order placement, and atomicity/failure semantics. Combined with the annotations and fully described schema, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents child, from_family, to_family, frel, mrel, and allow_new_type. The description adds no additional syntax, ordering, or field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 child to another family'. It also distinguishes this operation from detaching and re-adding, which would lose citations and notes, so the agent can tell it apart from nearby tools like detach_object or add_child_to_family.

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?

It gives clear context for why this tool exists: it preserves citations and notes that a detach/re-add workflow would lose. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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