move_pattern_2d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a move occurs and the two coordinate modes; it does not explain the coordinate system, units, whether pattern_index identifies the piece being moved, what happens if both absolute and relative values are provided, or whether the move has any side effects. This leaves important behavior undocumented.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and then succinctly presents the two calling conventions. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 mutating tool without annotations and without an output schema, this description is too thin. It leaves unclear how pattern_index selects the piece, whether x/y and dx/dy are mutually exclusive alternatives, what coordinate space is used, and what response or visual change an agent should expect. An agent could easily construct an ambiguous or invalid call.

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 adds essential meaning by clarifying that x/y are absolute coordinates and dx/dy are relative offsets. However, it does not explain pattern_index's role, even though that is the only required parameter, nor does it specify precedence or units when multiple movement parameters are supplied.

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 a specific action ('Move') and a specific resource ('a piece in the 2D pattern window'), and immediately distinguishes the two supported movement modes: absolute position (x, y) and relative offset (dx, dy). This is concrete and differentiates it from other pattern-related tools like flip_pattern or place_pattern.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as place_pattern or reset_arrangement, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The intended use case is implied by the name and the mention of the 2D pattern window, but an agent is not told how to choose between this and related sibling tools.

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