move_spread

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the spread's content remains intact, if the operation is undoable, or if it requires certain permissions). The agent cannot infer safety or constraints.

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, economical sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the resulting state, the interaction between parameters (e.g., referenceSpreadIndex is ignored unless position is BEFORE/AFTER), or how this fits into the broader workflow of managing spreads.

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 input schema has 67% description coverage (spreadIndex and referenceSpreadIndex have descriptions, position does not). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the enums or how they affect positioning. The agent must rely solely on the schema and enum labels.

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 action (Move) and the object (spread) and hints at the target (different position). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like move_page and move_page_item which operate on different entities. However, 'different position' is somewhat vague and could be more specific (e.g., reorder within the document).

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like move_page, duplicate_spread, or delete_spread. It lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., document must have multiple spreads), or conditions where this tool is appropriate.

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