move_effect

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful mental model of a drag-and-drop reorder, but omits what actually happens to intervening effects (shift vs. swap), whether out-of-range positions error, and whether repeated calls compound — all relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and the domain front-loaded, plus a compact parenthetical analogy. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-integer-parameter tool with annotations present and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but the mutation semantics (shifting of other effects, error behavior on invalid indices) are the one thing an agent most needs and they are absent.

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%: 'from' is documented as a 1-based chain position and 'to' merely $refs it. The description only restates 'from one chain position to another' and does not resolve the key ambiguity for a move operation — whether 'to' is interpreted against the pre-move or post-removal indexing, and whether positions renumber.

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 and resource ('Move an effect') plus a clear scope ('from one chain position to another'), which separates it from add_effect, remove_effect, and change_effect. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though change_effect and add_effect/remove_effect are plausible confusions. The 'like dragging it' analogy hints at reordering intent but is not an explicit selection rule.

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