update_item_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious reparenting behavior (a frame parent_id nests the item). However it omits the mutation's side effects, required permissions, the coordinate reference frame/units for x and y, and what happens when neither x/y nor parent_id is supplied.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and the whole definition is short with no filler. But the second sentence is muddled — a quoted "none" value that the schema's nullable string parent_id does not actually enumerate — so wording efficiency is undermined by ambiguity.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage needs substantially more than two sentences. The presence of an output schema excuses return-value documentation, but coordinate semantics, required permissions, and interaction between x/y and parent_id are all missing.

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 all five parameters rely on the description, which only addresses parent_id (and does so confusingly, mixing frame-id nesting with a contradictory "'none' semantics ... send parent omitted" instruction). x, y, board_id and item_id receive no semantic explanation at all — most critically, x/y are undocumented as absolute canvas coordinates vs. relative offsets.

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 concrete verb+resource pair ("Move an item on the canvas or reparent it") that an agent can act on directly. It does not distinguish itself from the many other update_* siblings (update_shape, update_sticky_note, update_frame, update_text, bulk_update_items) that plausibly also affect item placement, so the agent gets no disambiguation signal.

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?

"Works on any item type" sets scope and hints that this is the generic positioning tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over update_shape/update_sticky_note/bulk_update_items. The detach guidance is the only conditional instruction given, and it is oblique rather than directive.

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