move_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Move' implies a mutation (change of position), and the schema adds coordinates, but the description does not mention side effects, reversibility, or return behavior. It conveys the core action but lacks contextual detail such as whether the move is absolute or relative, or if it affects child nodes. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and target, earning its place without redundancy. This is an exemplary concise description.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the operation and the resource, and the schema covers parameters. However, with no annotations, it could have added a note about mutation or side effects, but the simplicity of the operation makes the current level sufficient. A small gap exists in not mentioning what happens after the move (e.g., return value or undo behavior).

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%, with each parameter having a clear description ('New X position', 'New Y position', 'The ID of the node to move'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('a node') and context ('to a new position in Figma'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like resize_node, clone_node, and delete_node by specifying the action of repositioning. The schema confirms x/y coordinates, so there is no ambiguity.

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 this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the name and verb imply its use for repositioning nodes, it does not state scenarios where it should be preferred over other node manipulation tools. Without this, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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