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

Annotations already declare mutating but non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior; the description adds substantive context beyond that: the operation is recorded as a git commit with the supplied reason and 'can always be traced back', and it fails when the destination exists. It does not cover permission requirements or how existing references to the old path behave, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences: purpose and audit behavior first, then use cases and the failure condition. No redundancy and nothing buried.

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 three-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what it does, why the reason is required, when to use it, and the key failure mode. No output schema exists but the description does not need one; nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 100% ('Current path', 'New path', 'Why it is being moved (required)'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces the meaning of the message field as an audit reason, but adds no format or path-syntax guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair (move/rename) against a specific resource (a document), and adds the failure condition (fails if destination exists). This clearly separates it from siblings like kb_delete (removal) and kb_write (create/update in place).

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?

Explicitly names two intended uses: reorganising folders and archiving outdated pages into archive/. It gives clear context for selection but does not name an alternative tool (e.g. kb_delete for outright removal) or state when not to use it. This is clear usage guidance without explicit exclusions.

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