move_table

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a key behavioral trait: size is preserved. It does not disclose other traits like coordinate interpretation (absolute vs relative) or effects on relationships, but this extra piece is useful.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and includes a meaningful qualifier. No wasted words; every part adds 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for a move operation. It could mention coordinate system or error conditions, but these are not critical. Overall, it provides enough context for a straightforward mutation.

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 meaning to x and y as 'finite coordinates' and clarifies size is unchanged. However, it does not explicitly define the 'diagram' or 'table' parameters beyond their names, relying on context. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 clearly states the action (move), the resource (table), and the target (finite x/y coordinates), with an explicit scope qualifier (without changing its size). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_table, remove_table, and relayout_diagram.

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 implies usage: when you want to manually position a table. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., table must exist). Context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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