move_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('move') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the move is destructive (overwrites existing position), side effects (e.g., affecting parent-child relationships), or error conditions (e.g., invalid coordinates). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary elaboration, 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., whether move is reversible), expected outcomes, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The high schema coverage helps, but overall context for safe and effective use is 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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (nodeId, x, y). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying x and y define the 'new position.' Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('move') and resource ('a node'), specifying the action and target. It adds context about the new position being in Figma, which helps differentiate it from generic move operations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'resize_node' or 'clone_node' that also manipulate node positions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing nodeId from get_node_info), exclusions (e.g., not for moving groups vs. individual nodes), or comparisons to siblings like resize_node (which changes size) or clone_node (which duplicates).

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