move_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors beyond the schema: the moved element's descendants travel with it, and moves are confined to the same map. It says nothing about permissions, what happens to the subtree's internal ordering, or failure conditions for invalid parent/after IDs, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence adds genuine value by enumerating the two supported move types. Slightly more could be trimmed or reordered, but it is efficient and well-structured.

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 hierarchy-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (subtree moves, same-map restriction, both move kinds) but omits error behavior, idempotency, and any post-move effect. The schema handles parameter detail, so this is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (mapId, elementId, newParentElementId, afterElementId) are already documented in the schema, including the null-for-top-level and null-for-first-position semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (move) and resource (one element) with clear scope: within the same map, and the moved element carries its subtree with it. It also clarifies that both cross-hierarchy moves (promote/demote) and same-level reordering are covered, which meaningfully separates it from edit_element and delete_elements. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at a strong 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 「これ1つで行える」 implicitly tells the agent this single tool covers both reordering and hierarchy changes, which is useful context for tool selection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no named alternative, and no stated prerequisite (e.g., that IDs must come from list_elements). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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