move_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the 'copy + delete' implementation, which implies destructive action on the source. However, it doesn't address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is atomic/transactional, error handling, or what happens if the delete fails after copying. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place—'move' specifies the action, 'entities' and 'zones' define the resources, and 'copy + delete from source' clarifies the implementation without redundancy.

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 complexity of a destructive move operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, side effects, and how it differs from sibling tools. The agent would need to infer too much from the sparse description.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like clarifying zone naming conventions or entity name formats). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 entities between zones') and specifies the implementation method ('copy + delete from source'), which distinguishes it from simple copy operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'copy_entities' or 'merge_zones' beyond the move semantics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_entities' (which might copy without deletion) or 'merge_zones' (which might handle zone consolidation differently). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for moving versus other operations.

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