move_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses reference rewriting, destination overwrite, hazardous-workbook refusal, auto-backup, atomic verified save, and refusal while open in Excel. This is rich behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 dense but well-structured: each sentence delivers a distinct constraint or behavior, with the core action first followed by guardrails. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the behavioral and safety aspects are covered exceptionally well. However, the missing parameter semantics for source/dest representation prevent full completeness; the output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only references allow_loss by name and does not explain the format or meaning of source, dest, path, sheet, backup, or verify_com. Essential invocation details are missing.

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 states a specific verb ('Move'), resource ('rectangle'), and destination ('new anchor on the same sheet'), and distinguishes the operation from cross-sheet moves by explicitly refusing them and pointing to copy_range/clear_range. This makes the tool's role clear among sibling tools.

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 explicit conditions: cross-sheet destination is refused and users should use copy_range then clear_range instead; hazardous workbooks require allow_loss=true; tool refuses while the file is open in Excel. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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