document.move_shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but never says whether the move is undoable, whether it requires selection/edit mode, what happens if the shape is off-canvas, or what is returned.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the space saved could have carried unit or return-value detail.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and zero per-parameter documentation, the definition is too thin. Key facts an agent needs — units, undo behavior, mutation effects, failure modes — are absent.

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 compensate for all three parameters. It explains dx/dy only as a coordinate delta without units (EMU? points? inches?) or sign conventions, and says nothing about what shape_id refers to or how to obtain one.

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?

States a specific verb (translate) and resource (a shape), and clarifies that the motion is a delta in slide coordinates, which distinguishes it from resize_shape and set_property. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so no credit for sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus resize_shape, set_property, or align_shapes, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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