move_frame

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

Annotations declare non-read-only and non-destructive, so safety is partly covered, and the description usefully discloses that cels move with the frame. It says nothing about undo behavior, whether the source position is closed up or left empty, or how the live/batch backends affect the operation, all of which matter for a reordering mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of underspecification for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and only safety-hint annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits sequencing effects, undo/rollback behavior, the significance of the save/backend parameters, and return/error expectations.

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 only 60%, and neither required parameter (from, to) has a schema description beyond minimum: 1. The description's phrase 'another position' hints these are positional indices but does not clarify whether they are frame numbers, ordering indices, or 1-based, so it fails to compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb (moves) and resource (a frame with its cels) and adds the meaningful detail that contained cels travel with the frame. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling frame tools such as add_frames, delete_frames, or set_frame_duration, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative frame operations like delete_frames + add_frames or copy_cel. The agent must guess at the appropriate context.

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