reparent_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral quirk – 'cut' implies removal from the old parent, and joining the auto-layout flow vs overlay placement are non-obvious behaviors. But it omits permission requirements, reversibility, and how existing layout sizing/constraints are affected on reparent.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two operating modes. Minimal waste, though the parenthetical list of container types and mode rules pack a lot into a compact block.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical auto-layout/overlay distinction but leaves permission needs, return/error behavior, and layoutSizing parameters unaddressed.

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 50%. The description adds real value by explaining the interaction of x/y, index, and ignoreAutoLayout across auto-layout vs overlay contexts, which goes beyond the schema. But it does not cover y (no schema description either) or layoutSizingVertical/Horizontal, leaving those semantic gaps unfilled.

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+resource: 'Move (cut) an existing node into a new parent container' and enumerates valid container types (frame, section, group, auto-layout, slot, page). An agent can distinguish it from generic siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with close alternatives like move_node, insert_child, or clone_node_into_parent.

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?

Provides conditional guidance for the auto-layout case (omit x/y, pass index) and the overlay case (ignoreAutoLayout + x/y), which is implied usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs use move_node/insert_child routing, and no precondition info.

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