move_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return format, the byte-by-byte audit report, and the automatic backup/rollback behavior on XML parse failure. It stops short of detailing validation side effects like cycle prevention, but the disclosed rollback semantics are still valuable.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds relevant information without unnecessary fluff.

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 mutating XML-backed operation with no annotations, the description covers the required inputs, return behavior, and an important failure/rollback path. It does not mention all possible constraints such as invalid parent relationships or effects on child ordering, but it is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters. node_id is defined as the node to move, and new_parent_id is clarified as the destination parent with the special value 0 meaning top-level.

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 precise operation statement, 'Move a node under a different parent,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and result. This distinguishes it from sibling read/create/update/delete tools.

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 intended use case is implied by the operation itself: an agent should call this when reparenting a node. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, and no comparison with alternatives such as update_node_properties.

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