Move Tag Id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a mutating operation, but it does not mention side effects on the source container, whether the move is reversible, or required flag conditions such as copy_terms_of_service needing to be true.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable relationship to a sibling tool without digression.

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 the 8-parameter surface and absence of annotations, the description provides only the essential action and sibling relationship. The rich schema and output schema compensate for parameter details, but behavioral caveats and side-effect context are still sparse.

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 documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Move'), a direct object ('a tag ID'), and a destination ('out of a container into a newly created one'). It also distinguishes the operation from its sibling by calling itself the inverse of combine_containers, so an agent can differentiate it without opening the 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 explicitly names combine_containers as the related alternative and explains the scenario this tool applies to: splitting a tag ID off a container that holds several. This is clear context, though it stops short of fully enumerating when not to use it or which other alternatives might apply.

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