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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the auth requirement (YAMLTools API key) and the semantics of folderId=null for root. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the diagram is removed from its previous folder, or whether the operation is reversible. The coverage is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and destination, followed by the auth note. Every word carries meaning; no filler or 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 simple two-parameter move operation, the description covers the purpose, destination semantics, and auth. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not mention the return value or success/failure behavior, but the core context is sufficiently complete for this low-complexity tool.

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% for both parameters (id and folderId), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the null-for-root meaning already present in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what schema descriptions provide.

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 action (move), the resource (the user's diagram), and the destination (a folder or root via null folderId). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_diagram, delete_diagram, and update_diagram by specifying the move operation and the special null case for root.

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 provides clear context: this is for relocating diagrams between folders or to the root. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the operation is well-defined and the null folderId handling is a useful usage detail. No exclusion criteria are given.

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