move_account

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that no transaction data changes, only the account position and descendant full paths are rewritten, errors change nothing, and %short GUIDs survive while saved full paths do not. This gives an agent a clear model of side effects and limitations.

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 essential effect and caveats are front-loaded, followed by clear failure conditions and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral or usage detail without rhetorical filler, making the length appropriate for the operation's complexity.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what changes, what does not change, failure atomicity, path-reference limitations, when to use an alternative, and exact parameter formats. No critical information is missing.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: it defines 'name' as an account ref with accepted formats (full path, %short GUID, or full 32-char GUID) including an example, and defines 'new_parent' with the same formats. No ambiguity remains.

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?

Opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Move an account — children and balances ride along — under a new parent in the hierarchy.' This immediately distinguishes the operation from renaming or deleting, and the later reference to update_account further sharpens its unique role.

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?

Provides explicit when-not guidance: 'Use update_account to rename in place instead of moving.' It also specifies failure conditions (no matching account, cycles, duplicate names) that produce a no-op, helping an agent decide whether the move is valid before calling.

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