move_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add context: moving fields affects data-entry screens, and setting after_field to None moves the field to the end of its instrument. However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on validation or surveys. This is partial transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a introductory sentence, context, then Args and Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place, with no redundancy. The format is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, the description is quite complete: it covers the operation, parameter behavior, and return value. However, it could be more comprehensive by addressing edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., whether the field must exist or if after_field must be in the same instrument). The existence of an output schema for the confirmation message helps, but a bit more behavioral context would make it complete.

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?

The description provides detailed semantics for both parameters in the Args section: field_name is the variable name, and after_field specifies the immediate successor with None moving to the end. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage and is a strong example of parameter documentation.

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 tool's function: 'Move a field to a new position in the data dictionary.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the additional context about field order controlling layout reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like add_field, update_field, and remove_field.

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 by explaining that field order controls layout, suggesting the tool is for reordering fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_field for changing field properties or add_field for creating fields. There is no exclusion guidance, so it falls short of a higher score.

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