signavio_move_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('move') but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects like updating references). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action ('Move a model to a different folder'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 both parameters (modelId and parentId) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the tool moves a model to a folder. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('move') and the resource ('a model'), specifying the destination ('to a different folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like signavio_move_folder by focusing on models rather than folders, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for moving folders instead), or how it relates to siblings like signavio_move_folder. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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