move_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the hand is returned home as a side effect, and the operation is effectively atomic ('Nothing moves if the plan is impossible'). It says nothing about how failure is surfaced, what the return value is, or whether the object must already be gripped or resting at from_station.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and its two endpoints, then appends the hand constraint and the home-return behavior. No padding or restated schema fields; every clause carries 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented-in-schema parameters, the description covers the parameters well but not the operation's contract. An agent still lacks the station numbering convention and what it receives back on success or failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning: the allowed hand values ('left' or 'right') are supplied where the schema merely declares a bare string, and the roles of from_station and to_station as origin/destination are made unambiguous. It still leaves the station number domain (indices? coordinates? valid range?) undefined.

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') plus the resource ('the object'), the two station arguments, and the hand that performs it — an agent can picture the action immediately. It is not explicitly contrasted with the pick/place siblings, so a reader has to infer that this is a compound station-to-station transfer rather than a single grasp/release.

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?

Usage is implied by the compound nature of the operation: it moves between stations and returns the hand home, so it is the tool for a complete transfer. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pick/place or bring_tube, and no preconditions (e.g. the object must be at from_station) are spelled out.

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