wp_blocks_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals a concurrency safeguard ('Hash references prevent overwriting a block changed since it was read') and the existence of dry-run, but it does not explain that this is a persisting write to the post/page, what happens on conflict, or what the operation returns. The disclosure is partial rather than comprehensive.

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 with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and each sentence adds either scope, safety rationale, or a capability. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutating tool with 8 parameters, complex block-locator options, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain prerequisites (locating source/target blocks), how 'to' relates to 'from', what return value or confirmation is produced, or failure behavior beyond the implicit hash safeguard. The agent would need to infer a significant amount of task logic from the schema alone.

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 only 50%, so the description should add param-level meaning. It adds a little by explaining the purpose of hash references and mentioning dry-run, but dry-run is already in the schema and the description does not clarify the key from/to locator relationship or the meaning of position values. The schema's enums and constraints carry most of the load.

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 opens with 'Move one Gutenberg block relative to another,' a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies a repositioning operation. This differentiates it from sibling block tools such as wp_blocks_insert, wp_blocks_replace, wp_blocks_update, and wp_blocks_delete without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

When to use the tool is implied by the move semantics and the mention of dry-run, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer (e.g., wp_blocks_update for content edits vs this for reordering). The agent can infer the main use case but is not told about prerequisites like reading blocks first.

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