moveDocumentParts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond those flags: this is a server-side action rather than a resource creation, retry safety is action-dependent and not guaranteed, and dry_run previews the exact request. It stops short of describing permissions or outcome/error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the alternative/dry_run guidance follows logically. The final sentence about returning previews as structured content when the tool declares an output schema is slightly redundant here because no output schema exists, but overall the text is efficient.

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 output schema, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety flags, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it does, what to read first, the better alternative for structural replacement, idempotency framing, and a dry_run safety path. It lacks explicit detail on permissions or failure modes, but nothing critical for invocation 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 defines `partId`, `spaceId`, `projectId`, `dry_run`, and the nested `requestBody` fields. The description mentions 'requested part IDs and target position' and the dry_run tip but does not add syntax or mapping detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb pair (reorders/relocates) and resource (parts within a LiveDoc), plus the mechanics (part IDs and target position). It explicitly names `getDocumentParts` and `overwriteDocumentParts`, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling document-part tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (read current part IDs with `getDocumentParts` first) and a clear when-not/alternative (use `overwriteDocumentParts` only when replacing document structure rather than moving existing parts). It also recommends a dry_run validation step, so selection is unambiguous.

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