Reparent Node

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

The description is consistent with annotations (idempotentHint, openWorldHint) but does not disclose potential side effects or the scope of the operation (e.g., whether it moves or copies). With annotations, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the term 'reparent'.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the optional parameter.

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 (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It could mention the return value or side effects, but the output schema covers returns. The annotations provide safety hints, so overall it's adequate.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The tool description only adds context for 'index' (optional position). It does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Reparent a node') and the resource ('node'), and mentions the optional parameter 'index'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like node_group or node_flatten.

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 when to use the tool (to reparent a node) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools (e.g., node_group for combining nodes). It lacks 'when-to-use' vs 'when-not-to-use' context.

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