Move a node to a different parent at a chosen index, reordering site structure. Supports forced moves and dry-run to preview changes before applying.
Move a node to another parent at an index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| force | No | Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced | |
| index | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| parent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.63.0Input schema / properties / forceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the core repositioning behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether children are preserved, what happens to the old parent, or what force/dry_run actually do at runtime.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The essential operation and target are front-loaded.
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 with five parameters, no output schema, and an unexplained guard flag (force) plus dry_run, this description is too thin. An agent would need to infer conventional semantics for the optional parameters and possible side effects.
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?
The phrase 'another parent at an index' gives meaning to the required parameters id, parent_id, and index. Since schema description coverage is only 20%, the description should also clarify optional parameters, but dry_run is left undocumented and force is only explained in the schema.
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 names a specific verb (Move), a resource (node), and a target location (another parent at an index). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sb_remove, sb_duplicate, and sb_add.
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 tool's intended use is implied by the action word 'move', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as sb_duplicate, sb_set, or sb_remove. No exclusions or decision criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.