mdpa_move_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: coordinates must be one-per-node in node_ids order, and elements retain connectivity. However it is silent on whether the operation mutates the file in place vs. writes via 'output', what 'overwrite' does, and whether errors occur on partial node matches — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the mode fork, with no redundant restatement of the tool name. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 7 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description should say more about path/output/overwrite. It adequately covers the geometric semantics but leaves the I/O and overwrite contract ambiguous.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics for 'coordinates' (shape and ordering), 'offset', 'node_ids', and 'selector' (pointing to mdpa_select_nodes), but leaves 'path', 'output', and 'overwrite' entirely unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Move nodes') and immediately disambiguates the two distinct behaviors (absolute 'coordinates' vs relative 'offset'). It names sibling tools (mdpa_select_nodes for selection, mdpa_quality for validation) but does not explicitly contrast itself with other mutation siblings like mdpa_transform or mdpa_add_nodes.

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?

It clearly explains the when-to-use fork between setting absolute coordinates and applying an offset, and directs the agent to mdpa_select_nodes for building a selector. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or guidance on overwrite semantics, but the core decision context is present.

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