Move elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by explaining that dry=true returns the full set of changes without writing and dry="summary" returns a shortened decision view. It does not spell out side effects of moving (e.g., what breaks when walls are detached), which keeps it below 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and both modes, with the dry-run semantics trailing. No filler, and the shorthand style suits the tool's technical domain.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers both modes and the dry-run escape hatch, but omits the `joined` behavior and any sibling routing, which leaves a small gap for a 6-parameter destructive tool.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, and the description's explanation of 'first id goes there, rest keep offsets' largely restates the `to` parameter's own description. The `joined` parameter is never mentioned in the description. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (move) and resource (elements) and distinguishes its two operating modes: relative shift via dx/dy versus absolute placement via to=[x,y]. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling mutation tools (arrange, place, update), but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Explains the two invocation modes and the dry-run variants, which is useful selection guidance within the tool. However, 'see `update`' is an unexplained pointer with no condition attached, and there is no guidance on when to choose move over siblings like arrange or place.

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