Move

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

The description claims 'exact retries with the same actionId are safe,' which is an idempotency guarantee, but annotations set idempotentHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, so per the rubric the score must be 1 despite useful context about state mutation and version checking.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core purpose, then state the side effect and the key invocation constraints. No filler or redundant framing.

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?

Covers the essential operational details: where destinationId comes from, that the action mutates state, and how to handle retries/versioning; output schema covers return values. The idempotency contradiction prevents the definition from being fully coherent, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the roles of actionId, expectedStateVersion, and destinationId, but mostly restates the schema's own parameter descriptions rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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 precise action ('Move') and the target source ('a destinationId returned by look'), and explicitly notes it changes virtual room state. This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like look and inspect.

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?

Clearly signals it should follow a successful look result by requiring a look-returned destinationId and the latest expectedStateVersion. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives beyond look, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use guide.

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