move_tile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-solves,' which hints at automatic solving after the move, but fails to clarify critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as it moves tiles), what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled (e.g., invalid coordinates). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—just two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key behavioral trait ('Auto-solves'). There is no wasted language, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a tile-moving operation in a level editor context, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether the move affects game state permanently), error conditions, or what 'Auto-solves' entails (e.g., solving the level automatically after the move). This makes it inadequate for safe and informed use by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (fromX, fromY, toX, toY) as coordinates. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate ranges or units. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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'), the resource ('one tile/special element'), and the scope ('from one coordinate to another'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'place_tile' or 'simulate_move', which slightly limits its distinctiveness.

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 like 'place_tile' (for initial placement) or 'simulate_move' (for testing moves without changes). It also lacks information about prerequisites, such as whether a tile must exist at the source coordinates, leaving usage context unclear.

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