move_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the basic action but omits critical details such as whether the move preserves any ordering, whether references are updated, whether permissions are required, or what happens to child elements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no fluff and every word contributes to meaning, making it appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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 that this is a mutating operation with no annotations and an output schema not shown, the description lacks essential context. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or failure conditions. An agent cannot fully understand the implications of calling this tool without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that element_id refers to the element being moved and new_parent_id is the destination parent, adding some meaning beyond the bare parameter names. However, it does not elaborate on constraints like valid parent types or whether the parent must exist, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'element', and clarifies the action as re-owning by moving to a new parent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_symbol (for diagram symbols) and create/delete element tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as delete_element or create_element. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and other hierarchy-modifying tools.

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