Move an item to a dock, library, page, or folder at a specified index or before another item to rearrange an iPhone Home Screen layout.
Move one item to target ('dock', 'library', 'page:N', 'folder:[:N]'), at index
(0-based, default end) or just before the item with id before.
'library' = App Library only, off the Home Screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| item_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 0-based index, default end placement, `before` semantics, and that 'library' means App Library only, but does not explain mutation side effects, reversibility, undo behavior, permissions, or error conditions.
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 compact and front-loads the core action and target syntax. It packs useful placement details into a small space without obvious filler, though the density and unexplained fragments (`item_id`, `:N`) slightly reduce clarity.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks item identifier semantics, side-effect behavior, and guidance relative to siblings, even though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.
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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It meaningfully explains `target` formats and `index`/`before` placement, but leaves the required `item_id` and the meaning of `:N` in `folder:<id>[:N]` unexplained.
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 a specific verb and action: move one item to a target. It enumerates target forms and clarifies the library target, so the basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like `place_at`, `swap`, or `file_into_folders`.
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 target syntax and placement semantics, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `place_at`, `swap`, or `arrange`. There are also no stated preconditions or exclusions for moving an item.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.