move_flow_element

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds scope detail (top-level or nested flow) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like order changes or error conditions, so it meets the baseline for annotated tools.

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 sentence of 18 words, front-loading the verb and object. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, one enum) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and scope. It could mention the conditional requirement for referenceFlowId, but the schema handles that, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation.

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 description adds no new parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of parameter formats or constraints beyond 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 clearly states the tool moves an existing flow element while preserving its definition and FlowID. It distinguishes from siblings like insert_flow_element (creates new) and delete_flow_element (removes) by specifying repositioning and non-destructive nature.

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 implicitly suggests when to use (to reposition an element) and the sibling context provides clear alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the verb 'move' combined with sibling names offers sufficient guidance.

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