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

Annotations already declare mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, but the description adds little beyond the core action. It does not disclose effects like whether the source location is emptied, what happens to folder children, or whether destinationId null means root. There is no annotation contradiction, but the behavioral burden is mostly unmet.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and scope efficiently, earning its place without redundancy.

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 five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this one-liner is under-specified. It omits critical context such as idempotency requirements, optimistic concurrency via expectedUpdatedAt, destination edge cases, and whether moving a folder cascades to children. Even with an output schema present, the operational guidance is incomplete.

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, but it only mentions the entity types (note/folder) and the general notion of destination. It does not explain entityId, idempotencyKey, expectedUpdatedAt, or the nullable destinationId semantics, which would be essential for correct invocation.

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 verb ('Move') and resource ('a note or folder'), and adds the qualifier 'exact destination' to convey precision. This distinguishes it from siblings like move_file by scoping to workspace items (notes/folders) rather than generic files.

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 implies when to use the tool: when moving a note or folder to a precise destination. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use move_file or trash_workspace_item instead, leaving some routing to inference.

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