move_grab_layer

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

The central claim that the tool queues an intent 'without mutating the live page' directly conflicts with the annotation destructiveHint=true. A caller cannot safely tell whether this call is destructive or purely non-mutating. The description otherwise provides useful behavioral context (preview semantics, rejected roles, scoping exclusions), but the contradiction is severe enough to make the transparency score invalid.

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?

Every sentence in the description carries distinct information: core behavior, operation semantics, preview mode, permission behavior, and scope limitations. The structure is front-loaded with the most important fact and contains no redundant phrases or filler.

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 17-parameter, 8-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers only part of the surface: operation selection, preview/proposed mode, and scope boundaries. It does not explain how orderedSelectors/indices/snapshot hashes fit the invocation, nor what the queued intent returns or how it is later consumed. It is a solid baseline but not complete for a tool with this level of complexity.

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?

The description adds real value beyond the raw schema: it explains operation variants, ties reorder to parentSelector and reparent to toParentSelector, clarifies that roles are not caller-suppliable, and explains the meaning of measuredRects. However, with only 24% schema description coverage, important required fields such as fromIndex, toIndex, orderedSelectors, approximate, and domSnapshotHash remain semantically unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 action ('queue a same-page layer reorder or reparent intent') against a clear resource ('layer'), and distinguishes the behavior from direct live-page mutation. It also distinguishes the two operation modes (reorder vs reparent), which makes the tool instantly recognizable among the large sibling list.

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 gives operation-specific guidance: reorder uses a single parentSelector, reparent uses toParentSelector, and measuredRects determine preview vs. proposed behavior. It also bounds scope to same-page and excludes shadow-root/iframe boundaries. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or prerequisites such as starting a grab session, so it falls just short of full cutoff guidance.

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