move_entity_script

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds the notion of execution-order index, but does not disclose whether moving affects the indices of other scripts, what the response looks like, or any side effects. With annotations present, some credit is given, but the description adds limited new behavioral 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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple three-parameter operation, the description plus annotations and schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The operation's purpose and inputs are clear. A small gap is the lack of detail on how the move interacts with other scripts' ordering, but this is not essential for making the call.

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%, with each parameter (entityId, script, index) already having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Move') and a specific resource ('script') with a clear target context ('to a new execution-order index on an entity'). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like attach_script, add_entity_scripts, and remove_entity_scripts, which perform different operations on entity scripts.

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 clearly implies the use case of reordering a script's execution position on an entity, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance on selecting this over add/remove script tools.

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