km_move_action

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

The description adds the behavioral trait that subsequent actions shift down, which is useful and beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose potential error states, idempotency, or effects on other macro components, which would be valuable given the lack of 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?

The description is exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

For a simple move operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the reordering behavior, though it could mention the return value (e.g., success indicator) or constraints like what happens if indices are invalid.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. It reiterates the concept of a new position index but does not clarify 1-based indexing or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 repositions an action and explains the behavioral effect on subsequent actions. It uses specific verb 'Move' and resource 'action', distinguishing it from siblings like km_add_action or km_delete_action.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The context for reordering actions is implied, but without mentioning alternatives like km_add_action or km_delete_action, an agent might not know the best tool for the task.

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