nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool moves a block but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., reordering impacts, permissions needed, error conditions like invalid IDs, or whether changes are reversible). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('move') and resource. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., success/failure responses, side effects), error handling, and comparison to siblings. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (sourceId, targetId, position). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how 'position' relates to 'targetId' or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('move') and resource ('flowPage block/model'), specifying the purpose as repositioning relative to another block. It distinguishes from siblings like 'destroy_flow_model' (deletion) or 'duplicate_flow_model' (copying), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'insert_adjacent_schema'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing blocks), exclusions (e.g., invalid positions), or compare to siblings like 'insert_adjacent_schema' for similar positioning tasks, leaving usage context implied at best.

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