Move nodes

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: that the whole batch is 'one undoable step' (atomic undo semantics) and that coordinates are in board units. It does not cover failure behavior when a node id is invalid or what happens beyond the 500-item cap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the undo guarantee. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly, especially the batch-in-one-undo behavior. It stops short of describing coordinate overwrite semantics or error handling for bad ids.

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 has to carry the semantics. It does explain the coordinate units ('board units') and that x/y are the top-left position, which the schema's bare 'number' types do not say, but it does not explain the 'moves' batch wrapper, the per-item id/x/y contract, or the 1..500 item bounds.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set exact top-left positions ... of nodes') and adds semantic detail (board units, top-left anchor) that makes the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby layout sibling arrange_nodes, which is the main differentiation gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as arrange_nodes (auto layout) or update_nodes. An agent must infer from the name and siblings which tool applies.

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