move_to_bed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that objects are removed from their current bed (the core destructive consequence of a move), whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are needed. It does add useful context that bed="new" clones the current bed's settings and that arrange triggers a re-layout, but the mutation profile stays opaque.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is tight, with each line adding distinct information. Slightly mechanical formatting, but nothing wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are covered. However, for an unannotated mutation tool, the description omits what happens to the source bed and whether the move is reversible, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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, and it largely does: objects accepts ids or names, bed accepts a name or the special value "new" with defined semantics, and arrange is explained as re-arranging the target bed afterwards. Only the default of arrange and any constraints on list size are left unstated.

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 first line gives a specific verb and resource ("Move objects to another bed"), which distinguishes it from copy_objects, remove_objects, and set_bed at a glance. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus copy_objects (which presumably keeps the originals) or set_bed, nor any prerequisite about the source bed. The only usage-like hint is the magic value bed="new", which is a parameter note rather than selection guidance.

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