move_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the subtree move and the free-address selection, but omits critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, reversibility, effects on existing references, or failure conditions. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, gives an example, and adds a parameter nuance—all in a compact, readable format.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain three of four parameters, does not describe the output schema or return value, and omits side effects or error scenarios. An agent would lack essential context to call this tool correctly and safely.

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. It only explains int_address (optional, free-address selection). The required parameters device, handle, and new_parent are not described at all, leaving their meaning and format entirely to inference from parameter names, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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: moving a device along with its subtree to another node, and provides a concrete example (hanging a device on another ALS). This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like add_device, set_device, and remove_device.

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 example use case (перевесить прибор на другую АЛС) gives a practical scenario, and the note about int_address clarifies when an address is automatically chosen. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so an agent might not fully distinguish it from add_device or set_device without deeper analysis.

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