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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the side effect that the target collection becomes the note's main one, the special destructive-ish semantics of "Inbox", that tasks travel with the note, that team workspaces expose it to everyone, and a concrete refusal condition for agent-initiated cross-workspace moves. It does not cover failure modes (non-existent collection/workspace) or what happens when both collection and to_workspace are supplied.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary action before qualifications. The nested parentheticals make it dense to parse, but nearly every clause conveys a non-obvious rule an agent needs, so there is little wasted text.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the important behavioral consequences and one hard constraint. Missing are return/confirmation behavior and error conditions, which an agent would likely need before firing the call blindly.

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 coverage is 50%: workspace and to_workspace are documented in the schema, while id and collection are not. The description compensates for the collection gap by defining the "Inbox" sentinel and the main-collection effect, but adds nothing about `id` and does not clarify interaction between collection and to_workspace when both are set. Adequate, with a clear residual gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Move a note") and spells out the two independent dimensions it operates on: collection membership and workspace. It even characterizes the special "Inbox" value. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like update_note or create_collection, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 rather than stated: there is no "use this when..." or explicit alternative tool named. It does provide useful in-context rules — use "Inbox" to clear collections, and pass the same workspace you found the item in — plus a disclosed refusal case, which lifts it above bare implication but leaves the agent to infer when to prefer this over update_note.

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