move_catalog_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Move'), suggesting potential side effects, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the move is atomic or reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or impact on related data (e.g., references to moved items). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Move catalog items') and specifies the destination efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (a mutation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'move' entails (e.g., does it remove from the original category?), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that alters data, more behavioral and contextual information is needed.

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?

The description mentions 'catalog items' and 'different category', which aligns with the parameters 'item_ids' and 'target_category_id' in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantic context (e.g., items are moved to a category) but lacks details on ID formats, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 resource ('catalog items'), specifying the destination ('to a different category'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_catalog_item' or 'create_catalog_category' by focusing on relocation rather than modification or creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'reorder_workflow_activities' in terms of scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing items/categories), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to non-existent categories), or comparisons with siblings like 'update_catalog_item' for changing other properties. It only states the basic action without context.

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