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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the cascade scope (all contained notes, attachments, subfolders) and the reindex/sync side effect. It stops short of mentioning irreversibility or collision behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action and its scope front-loaded, followed by the sync consequence and the sibling alternative. No redundant or filler content.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and a separate output schema, the description conveys the cascade and reindex behavior needed to call it correctly. It omits edge cases such as name collisions or failure modes, which leaves a small gap.

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%, so old_folder, new_folder and vault_id are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Rename or move a folder') and immediately scopes it to the whole subtree ('every note, attachment and subfolder inside it'). It also distinguishes itself from the analogous sibling by naming rename_note for the single-note case.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance by naming rename_note for moving a single note, so the agent knows which tool handles the narrower case. However it offers no guidance against create_folder/delete_folder or other folder siblings, nor when-not conditions for this tool itself.

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