node_move

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds behavioral details like query-string parameter transport and HTTP method, enhancing the agent's understanding of the operation's side effects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. Key information is front-loaded: the purpose and endpoint. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the necessary information for invocation: parameters, their roles, and the nature of the operation (query-string, default position). Minor omission: no mention of error handling or permissions, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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?

While schema coverage is 75% (missing site description), the description adds meaningful guidance for parent_id and position (e.g., 'pass current to just reorder' and '1-indexed, Voog default 1'), exceeding the schema's own descriptions. This compensates for the missing site parameter description.

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?

Clearly states the tool moves/reorders a node within the page tree, explicitly mentioning the HTTP PUT endpoint and distinguishing between moving and reordering. This verb+resource combination is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like node_relocate.

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?

Provides useful guidance on how to use parent_id (pass current for reorder, new for move) and position (optional, 1-indexed, defaults to 1). However, lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., node_relocate) or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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