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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that: the destination folder is created if missing, moving into a note's folder converts the target into a sub-note, and renames preserve the file ending. The one notable gap is collision handling — with destructiveHint=true, an agent would want to know whether moving onto an existing name overwrites it.

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 front-loaded with the verb+resource, then enumerates destination forms with semicolon-separated clauses so each one is scannable. The single run-on sentence is dense but every clause carries distinct semantic content; only mild structural improvement (e.g., bullets) would help.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description covers target types, destination interpretation, auto-creation, and naming rules. The missing piece is failure/collision behavior and any permission requirement, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's terse "Where it goes." for `to`: a trailing slash means a folder, a bare name means a rename, and the ending is preserved. It also clarifies the `path` format by tying it to how list and search render paths, which the schema only partially does.

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 gives a specific verb pair (moves or renames) and enumerates the exact resource kinds affected: notes, folders, app files, and files within folders. Each move form is instantiated with a concrete example path, which lets an agent distinguish this from `edit`/`write`/`create` without opening the schema.

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?

It implicitly shows usage through the destination patterns (trailing slash = into a folder, `.md` = rename, note's folder = sub-note), which is more than nothing. However it never states when to prefer `move` over siblings like `edit` or `create`, nor any when-not condition or prerequisite. Usage is inferable from examples only.

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