move_key

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

The annotations already settle the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), and the description usefully adds that the operation is staged only rather than applied live, plus that child keys, images and titles are carried along. It stops short of warning about overwrite risk in swap/copy mode or stating a rollback path, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the action, the payload, and the staging constraint are front-loaded in that order.

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?

With seven parameters, an output schema, and annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly, and the staging note orients the agent in the workflow. It leaves the mode-specific preconditions and the required follow-up tool to inference, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so every parameter (mode, device, profile, from_slot, to_slot, to_device, to_profile) is already documented with examples and defaults. The description only restates the mode values, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states specific verbs (move, swap, copy) applied to a specific resource (a key), and enumerates the payload that travels with it (settings, title, image, children) plus the scope (within a profile or to another profile/device). This clearly separates it from siblings like set_key, update_key, clear_key, and add_child.

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 implied usage through the three modes, but it never names when to prefer this over update_key or set_key, nor does it explain the preconditions for each mode (that move requires an empty destination, swap exchanges, copy duplicates). 'Staged only' hints at the workflow without spelling out that apply_changes is required.

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