move_units

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior: the server revalidates ownership at execution time, and 'Accepted' only means the order entered the official command queue, not that units will arrive. It still leaves open what happens on partial failure, whether an order can be superseded, and what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two caveats an agent most needs. No restatement of the tool name and no filler; the only slight untidiness is the dangling sentence break before the acceptance caveat.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across four parameters, the description should do more. It covers coordinate semantics and the acceptance-versus-arrival distinction well, but says nothing about the queued flag, error or partial-success behavior, or the shape of the acknowledgement an agent will receive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives real meaning to x and z by identifying them as world coordinates and to entity_ids by tying them to currently owned movable units — meaning the bare schema titles 'X', 'Z', and 'Entity Ids' do not convey. The 'queued' parameter and its default remain unexplained, which keeps this below a top score.

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 and resource: 'Order currently owned movable units to world coordinates.' The scope qualifier 'currently owned movable units' tells an agent this only applies to units it already controls, which separates it from production or targeting tools. It stops short of naming a sibling such as order_units, so sibling differentiation is inferred from the scope qualifier rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Order ... units to world coordinates' and by 'Revalidates ownership in game,' which warns the agent that orders can be rejected for entities it no longer owns. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the related order_units or stop_units tools, and no statement of preconditions such as whether units must be idle or whether several entity_ids can be mixed.

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