move_list_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a 'move' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., removes from source), what happens if sections don't exist, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place - 'move' specifies the action, 'item' specifies what's being moved, and 'from one section to another' specifies the scope. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens during the move operation, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or what format the response takes. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall operational context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('move') and resource ('item from one section to another'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_list_item' or 'update_section', which might have overlapping functionality for list/section modifications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_list_item' and 'update_section' that might handle similar operations, there's no indication of when this specific move operation is appropriate versus other modification tools.

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