update_hubs_sections_by_section_id_manage_move

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance: 'empty/missing to put this hub first' explains what happens when after is absent. However, it does not disclose side effects on the rest of the ordering or any prerequisites, so it only partially enriches the annotation context.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and a clean parameter list. No filler or repetition; every sentence 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?

The description covers all parameters and the output schema is present, so return values need no explanation. However, it omits usage guidance and does not clarify how this tool relates to the many similar hub-management siblings, leaving an agent to guess when this specific move operation is appropriate.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: section_id as the section containing hubs, identifier as the hub to move, and after with the special empty/missing behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema properties.

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 opens with 'Move Hub,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the endpoint path 'PUT /hubs/sections/{sectionId}/manage/move' further specifies the operation. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like update_hubs_sections_by_section_id_manage_by_identifier, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or how this move operation differs from other hub-management tools, leaving an agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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