km_move_macro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'move' without explaining side effects (e.g., effect on triggers, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the macro's position). This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 a single sentence, entirely to the point with no extraneous words. It is a model of conciseness.

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 is too minimal for a move operation. It does not explain consequences (e.g., does it update the macro's group property? does it affect triggers referencing the macro? does it maintain order?). No output schema, so description should clarify effects, but fails to do so.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides: 'Macro name or UID to move' and 'Target group name or UID'. No elaboration on format, uniqueness, or constraints.

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 action ('Move') and the resource ('macro') and the target ('different macro group'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like km_create_macro (create new), km_delete_macro (delete), and km_move_action (move action within macro).

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, no prerequisites or conditions, and no scenarios where it should not be used. It lacks any context for usage.

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