move_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses atomicity ('in one write'), preserved properties ('keeping everything else about them'), the label-follows-container side effect, the arrow-binding behavior (end stays attached, include the arrow to move it whole), and the return value (new bounds). It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens on out-of-bounds moves, keeping it from 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its atomicity. Every clause adds information — selection modes, side effects, return value — with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with a nested region object and no output schema, the description covers selection, side effects, and return shape ('new bounds'), which is the key omission filled since no output schema exists. It is silent on the required 'label' history semantics (delegated to the rich schema) and on default behavior when dx/dy are omitted, a modest remaining gap.

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 71% and the description adds real meaning on top: it enumerates the four selection modes (ids, groupIds as an import_svg piece, region box, any mix) and clarifies the arrow-inclusion nuance for moving bound arrows whole. It does not restate dx/dy direction, which the schema already covers well.

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 (Shift), the exact mechanism (by dx, dy), the atomicity (in one write), and the scope (a set of elements). The dx/dy translation semantics inherently distinguish it from update_elements without needing to name the sibling.

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 explains HOW to select targets (ids, groupIds, a region box, or any mix), which is genuine selection guidance, but never states when to reach for this tool versus update_elements or add_elements/delete_elements, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied by the 'move by translation' framing rather than stated.

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