move_entities

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety burden is lifted. Beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context: it does not say what happens to entities on locked or frozen layers, whether the move is undoable, or what the result contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the operation front-loaded; nothing is wasted or buried. Size is appropriate for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Because an output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented with annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. However, for a bulk mutation of handles, it says nothing about failure modes (invalid/locked handles) or whether the operation is atomic, leaving the agent to guess at edge-case behavior.

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% — both 'handles' (entity handles, hex strings) and 'displacement' ([x, y] or [x, y, z]) are documented in the schema. The description's '[dx, dy(, dz)]' merely restates the schema, adding no syntax, unit, or axis-convention detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Move entities') plus the exact mechanism ('by a displacement vector'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not differentiate from siblings such as offset_entity or rotate_entities, which also transform entities, so a routing distinction is missing.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative (offset_entity) for offsetting rather than displacing. 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.