move_question

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but do not detail side effects. The description adds useful context on the after/before mechanics and the front/end positioning, going slightly beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose what happens if both after and before are provided, if the referenced code does not exist, or whether the operation is reversible—gaps that the description could address given minimal annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes: the first states the action and object, the second explains the after/before options and how to achieve front/end placement. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, output schema present) and the existence of siblings, the description covers the essential usage scenarios. It explains the after/before logic and front/end moves. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use after/before for front/end positioning, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies that 'code' refers to a question or a Breaker (page break), adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's generic 'field code'.

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 verb and resource: 'Move an existing question or page break to a specific position by code.' It also specifies the mechanism (after/before) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like insert_question or update_question by focusing on repositioning existing elements rather than adding or editing content.

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 explicit instructions on when to use this tool and how to use its parameters: 'Choose either after or before, referencing another field's code.' It also explains how to move to the front and end. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the context makes it clear this is for reordering, and the front/end tips add practical guidance.

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