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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core action. It does not mention whether moving overwrites an existing note, whether intermediate folders are created, or any permissions needed. The lack of these details limits transparency.

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 words. It states the action and target efficiently, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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?

Though the tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description lacks essential operational context. It does not address edge cases such as collisions, path validity, or whether the operation affects related folders. Given the risk of a move operation, the description is incomplete for confident invocation.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter names 'Path' and 'New Path' with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that the new location is a 'relative markdown path', which clarifies the format for new_path. However, it does not elaborate on the source path semantics or any transformation rules, so the compensation is partial.

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 'Move a note to a new relative markdown path' clearly identifies the specific action (move) and resource (note), and the 'relative markdown path' details distinguish it from sibling tools like rename_folder. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_folder or upsert_note. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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