Ase Move Selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key trait that only selection bounds move, not pixels, but it omits whether dx/dy are relative offsets, what happens if no selection exists, and whether bounds are clamped to canvas edges. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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?

A single sentence with the core verb and resource, plus a clarifying parenthetical that enriches meaning. Every word earns its place and the essential scoping detail is front-loaded. This is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter 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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the primary action and the pixel/non-pixel distinction, but leaves out parameter semantics and behavior in edge cases. For an agent to invoke it confidently, more detail on dx/dy and selection existence would be needed.

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 explain the parameters. It only says 'move the selection bounds' and gives no detail on dx/dy meaning, units, or direction. The names dx/dy hint at deltas, but the description adds no explicit value beyond the schema's bare integer declarations.

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 'Move the selection bounds (not pixels)' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from tools that move pixel content. It also differentiates from sibling selection tools like ase_select_rectangle or ase_copy_selection by focusing on repositioning the selection bounds.

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 implies the tool is for shifting the selection boundary without affecting underlying pixels, which is a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as ase_get_selection or ase_select_rectangle, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an active selection.

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