Move fixtures to another layout of their fixture type

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the call runs one patch session, is isolation-checked, is committed with no undo, and requires exclusive access. It also states what is preserved (FIDs, addresses, cells, groups, preset values) and the minimum bridge version, which is exactly the mutation risk an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then preconditions, then side effects and return shape — a logical order with no filler sentences. The heavy parenthetical asides make it dense to parse in one pass, so it is efficient rather than elegant.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety profile, the preconditions, the preserved state, the return payload shape and the version requirement. The only omission is the meaning of `verify`, which is a minor gap against otherwise complete coverage.

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 coverage is only 40%, yet the description compensates well: it constrains the target `type` to a layout copy with a matching DMX mode name/channels/footprint, states that `exclusive: true` is mandatory, and explains the `detail` flag's return behavior and the items shape on clean success. The gap is `verify`, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 specific verb and resource ('Moves fixtures to another fixture type') and immediately narrows it with the key qualifier that the target must be a layout copy of theirs, or a move back to the original. That distinguishes it clearly from the sibling gma3_layout_cells, which is named as the tool that creates those layout copies.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('so several fixtures share one layout') and an explicit precondition for the call to succeed: the target type must have a DMX mode with the same name, channels and footprint, otherwise it is refused. It also states that exclusive: true is required. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use case beyond the refusal condition, which keeps it off a 5.

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