creator_reparent_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral nuances. It only states the core action and does not mention side effects such as whether child nodes are reparented, whether the operation is reversible, or constraints like preventing cycles. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for a mutating operation.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the core purpose and the key parameter nuance. There is no redundant information, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits important edge-case constraints, such as the inability to move a node to its own descendant or the behavior regarding child nodes. With no annotations or output schema to fall back on, the description should provide more guidance to prevent erroneous usage.

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 already covers all three parameters with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description additionally clarifies that the 'index' parameter is zero-based ('0 = first'), which is not evident from the schema description 'Sibling insertion index'. This adds meaningful value.

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 tool's action ('Move a node to a new parent') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which handle reparenting, so there is no ambiguity.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to change a node's parent. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool serves a similar purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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