update_comment_thread_position

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'move[s]' the thread, which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or coordinate system context. Beyond the core action, there is no additional behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler, repeated information, or unnecessary qualifiers, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 positional update tool, the description is nearly complete given the rich schema and absence of an output schema. It covers the core intent, while the schema handles parameter specifics. Minor omissions like coordinate context (e.g., relative to the frame) prevent a perfect score, but overall it is adequately complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, including 'New X position', 'New Y position', and 'Frame ID (required)'. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it matches the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 'Move a comment thread to a new position' uses a specific action verb ('move'), names the resource ('comment thread'), and specifies the target ('new position'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like update_comment_thread_status or delete_comment_thread.

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 clearly implies the tool is for repositioning comment threads, which is evident from the name and description. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend any alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full usage differentiation.

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