smartgym_move_exercise

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is already known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: dry_run defaults to true and sends NOTHING, which materially changes the safety profile of the default call. It does not clarify reversibility or auth requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by the parameter clarifications. Every clause adds operational value and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the key non-obvious behaviors for a 4-param mutation tool. It could note whether position is 0-indexed or what happens to the source section's ordering, but the essentials are present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden, and it does for three of four params: exercise_id provenance, position semantics (counted within target section, omitted = last), and dry_run behavior. Only 'section' is left to its enum values, which are self-explanatory.

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 (move) and resource (exercise), plus the two distinct scopes of the move: cross-section and intra-section repositioning. This cleanly separates it from siblings like smartgym_reorder_routine, smartgym_add_exercise, and smartgym_remove_exercise.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: exercise_id must come from smartgym_get_routine, and position counts within the target section with omission meaning 'last'. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. reorder_routine vs this) or any when-not condition.

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