move_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'delete first then add' (先删后加), indicating a specific operation order and implying mutation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or reversibility. While more informative than a generic 'move' statement, it is minimal and leaves out important behavioral context.

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, compact sentence that states the action and the key behavior. It is efficient with no wasted words, and the core information is front-loaded. However, it omits parameter details, so while concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 has three parameters, one required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate for correct invocation. It does not explain the purpose of the required 'path' parameter or the optional 'newName' and 'newParentPath'. It also fails to describe return values or error behavior. An agent would likely guess incorrectly about parameter usage, making this definition incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'new parentPath' but does not explicitly name the 'newParentPath' parameter, nor does it explain 'path' or 'newName'. Agents cannot infer what each of the three parameters represents from the description alone, especially 'newName'. This is a significant deficiency given the low schema coverage.

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 a component to a new parentPath, with the behavior 'delete first then add'. The verb 'move' and resource 'component' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like copy_component, reorder_component, add_component, and remove_component. This is a concise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_component or reorder_component. It only states what it does, not when it should be chosen. There is no explicit when-not or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context. This is a clear gap in guidance.

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