emacs_org_heading_move

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Move a heading up, down, or change its level.' It does not mention whether the whole subtree moves, how the heading text is matched, what happens with duplicate headings, or whether promote/demote changes by exactly one level. These are significant side effects for a mutating 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?

The description is a single 9-word sentence with no filler. The action and options are front-loaded and every word earns its place, though the brevity sacrifices behavioral richness captured in other dimensions.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutating operation, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits subtree behavior, heading-matching semantics, error cases, and any prerequisite about operating on an Org buffer. An agent could likely select the tool but might mispredict its actual effects.

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 100%, so buffer, heading, and direction are already documented in the schema. The description restates the direction options as 'up, down, or change its level' but adds no deeper meaning beyond what the enum and parameter descriptions provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Move') and resource ('a heading') and specifies the scope: moving up/down or changing level. It is distinguishable from sibling heading operations like add/update/delete because the action is reordering or restructuring, though it does not explicitly name any sibling for contrast.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emacs_org_heading_update or emacs_buffer_edit. The name and sibling list imply it is for reordering or changing heading levels, but the description leaves selection criteria entirely implicit.

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