wwise_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency (objects already there are skipped) and undoability, which are key behavioral traits. It also mentions the two-step plan/apply nature, adding transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. The most critical information is front-loaded: action and target specification. Very efficient.

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?

Given the two-step workflow and four parameters, the description covers idempotency, undoability, and parent types. But it lacks explanation of the plan/apply process (e.g., what plan returns) and return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for correct usage.

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% (no descriptions on parameters). The description adds meaning for 'parent' (accepts GUID, path, or name) and hints that 'mode' relates to plan/apply. However, it does not explain 'object_ids' or 'token', leaving gaps.

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 clearly states the tool reparents objects and specifies the target parent can be given as GUID, path, or name. This distinct action differentiates it from sibling tools like wwise_create_container or wwise_rename.

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 mentions a 'Two-step plan/apply' workflow, implying a sequence of calls, and notes idempotency and undoability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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