move_device_right

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without describing edge cases (e.g., what if the device is already at the rightmost position), side effects, or preconditions. This is minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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 two sentences: one for the action and one for the parameter list. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value 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 simplicity of the operation (two integer indices, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks behavioral context such as error conditions, whether the operation swaps or shifts, and index constraints, making it only minimally complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds definitions for both parameters: 'track_index: The index of the track containing the device' and 'device_index: The index of the device to move.' This clarifies the role of each parameter, though it does not specify indexing base (0-based or 1-based) or valid ranges.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Move a device one position to the right in the device chain.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'move_device_left' and other device-related tools. The scope is exact and 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 gives clear context by stating the direction of movement ('to the right') and the location ('device chain'), making it easy to infer when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as 'use move_device_left for the opposite direction'.

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