item_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing any side effects, constraints, or behavior beyond 'move.' There is no information on what happens to the original position, ripple editing, or error conditions. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 very concise with two sentences and an 'Args' list. However, the 'Args' list lacks types and further explanation, making it less structured than ideal. The main purpose is front-loaded, earning a high conciseness score but with a slight deduction for the minimal parameter documentation.

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 simplicity of the tool and the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., which item to move). The agent is left with insufficient information for robust invocation.

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% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The 'Args' section simply repeats the names ('item_index', 'new_position') without explaining what they represent (e.g., index from which list, unit of new_position). This fails to bridge the gap left by the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Move item to new position,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from a sibling tool by advising 'Prefer items_apply for multiple.' This effective differentiation earns a high score.

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 explicitly advises when to prefer an alternative tool ('Prefer items_apply for multiple'), providing clear context on when to use this tool versus another. This is direct and helpful for the agent.

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