Reparent object

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

Beyond annotations (which mark readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: rejection if new parent is self/descendant, change in inherited coordinate space affecting visual position, and the recommendation to render a preview before trusting. These details add significant transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. It uses separate paragraphs for usage, key params, return shape, and example. Every sentence adds value, though a slight tightening could be possible.

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 presence of an output schema ('CreateResult'), the description appropriately covers return shape, key constraints, and risk. It also provides a concrete example and a safety warning. The tool is moderately complex, and the description fully equips an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of `object_id` and `new_parent_id` ('both must exist') and gives an example, but does not explicitly describe `doc_id`. However, `doc_id` is a common document identifier and the context likely implies it. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Move an object under a new parent'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools 'group_objects' (wrapping several) and 'move_object' (repositioning without re-nesting), ensuring the agent selects the correct tool.

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 includes a 'When to use' section that sets precise context and names alternatives. It provides an example and a risk class ('medium'), giving the agent clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate and what to expect.

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