move_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does substantial work: it discloses refusals for moves that would cut fields or section breaks, backup rotation semantics in .ks4w-backups, atomic validated save, and refusal for documents open in Word. These behaviors go beyond what the schema or annotations expose and materially affect whether an agent should call the tool.

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?

Four sentences pack the core action, matching semantics, safety refusals, backup behavior, and save behavior without redundancy. The primary operation is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 complex mutation with six parameters and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it specifies what portion moves, how headings are matched, what operations are refused, and the backup/atomic-save guarantee. It is only slightly incomplete around destination-parameter combinations, such as what happens if at_end is false and no after/before heading is set, or if both are set.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the six parameters. It covers heading_text ('exact heading text'), the destination concepts ('before/after ... or to the end'), and backup, but it never names or explicitly explains file_path, at_end, after_heading, or before_heading, nor the precedence or conflicts between destination parameters. This allows rough mapping but leaves parameter-combination semantics to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Move'), a precise resource ('a heading and its ENTIRE section'), and the supported destinations ('before/after another heading or to the end'). It also distinguishes its matching model from siblings by noting sections are addressed by exact heading text and only headings are matched.

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 the tool is for whole-section moves and gives matching constraints, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over related siblings such as insert_paragraphs, delete_paragraphs, change_heading_level, or split_table. The usage context is clear enough to infer, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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