notebook_move_cell

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Moves a cell', which implies mutation but provides no details about side effects, order of operations, error handling, or whether the notebook is auto-saved. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 sentence, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is slightly too terse for a tool that requires clear behavioral context; a bit more detail would improve understandability without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity of a cell move operation (with three required parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain index semantics (0-based?), behavior when indices are out of bounds, whether other cells shift, or what the return value indicates. More context is needed for correct usage.

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 the input schema already explains the three parameters (path, from_index, to_index). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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 'Moves a cell to a different position', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like notebook_add_cell or notebook_delete_cell. However, it lacks nuance about the type of position (e.g., index-based) and the scope within the notebook.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_duplicate_cell or notebook_edit_cell. There are 28 sibling tools, and the description does not offer any context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use this tool.

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