move_grab_layer

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

The description claims the tool does not mutate the live page ('without mutating'), but the annotations set destructiveHint=true, implying the operation is destructive. This is a direct contradiction, severely undermining trust in the description's accuracy.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured, front-loading the primary operations and important caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 high complexity (17 parameters, 8 required, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and key distinctions but omits details on many parameters like measuredRects, orderedSelectors, and approximate, making it incomplete for fully informed 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?

With only 24% schema description coverage, the description adds some parameter meaning (e.g., toParentSelector for reparent, parentSelector for reorder, role rejected). However, many critical parameters (fromSelector, baselineOrder, measuredRects, etc.) remain unexplained, leaving gaps for a 17-parameter tool.

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 tool queues a same-page layer reorder or reparent intent without mutating the live page. It specifies the two operations (reorder vs reparent) and distinguishes their use cases, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use reorder (single parentSelector) vs reparent (toParentSelector) and notes that shadow-root and iframe boundaries are out of scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list shows no other move-layer tool, so context is clear.

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