Move or resize a shape

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

The description accurately conveys the primary behavior (move/resize/rotate) and adds a transparency guarantee: 'Only the values you pass are changed.' This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) by clarifying no unintended property changes. However, it does not mention potential side effects like connected connector adjustments, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a parameter list. It is well-structured with clear separations, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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?

Given the schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers all parameters with units and defaults, mentions the source for shape_id, and does not need to explain return values because an output schema is present. The context signals confirm an output schema exists, so no missing information.

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?

Each parameter is described in the text: shape_id is sourced from visio_list_shapes, x/y are in inches, width/height in inches, angle in degrees, and page/document have default behaviors. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions (0% coverage) and provides clear semantics for all 8 parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Move, resize or rotate a shape.' It uses a specific verb and object, and the phrase 'Only the values you pass are changed' distinguishes it from tools that might alter other properties. Given the sibling context, it is unmistakable that this tool is for geometry modifications.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like visio_set_shape_text or visio_add_shape. It implies usage for geometric changes via the name and description, but lacks direct guidance or exclusionary language. The note about only changing passed values offers some situational cue, but it is not explicit enough for a high score.

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