move_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that uniqueID is preserved, describes the underlying omniJS method, explains automatic index filling, and specifies the return format. However, it omits error conditions or permission requirements, which would improve 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 with clear sections (purpose, method details, args, returns). It is front-loaded with the main action. However, the omniJS version and build details add unnecessary length for an AI agent; trimming would improve conciseness.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema), the description covers core behaviors: reparenting without ID change, default index behavior, and return format. It is sufficient for typical usage but lacks details on error handling or constraints (e.g., cycles).

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It provides detailed semantics for each: resource_id (required), new_parent_id (defaults to root), and index (defaults to append). Adds context beyond schema, such as automatic index handling, which is critical for correct usage.

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 purpose: 'Reparent a resource without changing its uniqueID.' It uses a specific verb (move) and resource (resource), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'move_task' and 'create_resource' by focusing on moving within the hierarchy.

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 explains behavior (preserves uniqueID, fills index if omitted) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like delete-and-recreate. It implies usage for re-parenting but does not state exclusions or contexts where other tools would be more appropriate.

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