fx_move

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, and it does explain the core effect: moving an FX to a new chain position, with track_index supporting the master track via -1. However, it omits edge behavior such as invalid indices, reordering semantics when new_index equals fx_index, and any return or error signaling.

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 clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes either to understanding the operation or mapping the parameters.

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 simple 3-integer mutation with no output schema, the essential parameters are explained and the action is clear. However, the description does not cover return values, error conditions, or boundary behavior such as out-of-range indices, leaving some practical usage questions unanswered.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by defining all three parameters: track_index is 0-based or -1 for master, fx_index is the current FX index, and new_index is the target position. It does not specify bounds or confirm whether all indices are 0-based, but it adds essential meaning absent from 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 states a specific action ('Move FX') and its object ('to different position in chain'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling FX tools like fx_enable or fx_remove_batch, but the verb 'move' is distinctive enough to avoid major confusion.

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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_get_chain, fx_remove_batch, or fx_rename. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or prerequisites.

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