reparent_nodes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: absolute position is preserved by default, and auto-layout destinations are refused to avoid accidental layout changes, which tells the agent about a built-in guardrail it could not infer from annotations.

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 filler, with the core action front-loaded and the guardrail constraint trailing as supporting detail. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 a destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the positional behavior and destination restriction well but omits how insertIndex orders the moved nodes, the nodeIds count limit (max 100), and what happens on partial failure. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies preserveAbsolutePosition (default true, preserves absolute position) and constrains parentId to page/frame/component/section, but says nothing about insertIndex (the insertion position within the new parent) or the nodeIds array limits, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (scene nodes) plus the valid destination types (PAGE, FRAME, COMPONENT, SECTION), which is well beyond a tautology. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the close sibling reorder_nodes, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 implies usage by naming the allowed destination kinds and noting that auto-layout destinations are rejected, which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never states when to prefer this over reorder_nodes, nor any prerequisite such as needing node IDs from find_nodes/get_selection.

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