set_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key behavioral detail that the node's absolute position is preserved unless x/y are provided, which is not fully obvious from the schema. It does not discuss reversibility or side effects on children, but the disclosed positioning behavior is valuable and not contradictory.

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 one useful sentence plus a short behavioral clause, with the core action front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and the most important behavioral caveat (absolute position preservation). It could mention failure cases or return behavior, but the parameters are fully documented and the core call is clear.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters adequately. The description adds minor semantic nuance by linking x/y to absolute-position preservation, but it does not meaningfully expand beyond the schema's parameter 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 states a specific verb ('move'), a resource ('a node'), and the target ('into a new parent node'), and the example parent types make the operation concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'move_node', so clarity is strong but sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit guidance on when to use set_parent versus alternatives like move_node or clone_node. It implies a reparenting use case but never states when this tool is preferred or what the alternatives are for positioning-only changes.

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