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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, not open-world). The description adds substantial context beyond them: preserved metadata (title, links, backlinks, version history), the no-folder-creation constraint, and two concrete failure modes (unknown note, name collision in target). The consent workflow is behavior an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and side effects, then constraints and failure modes — good ordering. Slightly redundant: consent is stated twice ("Ask the user first and only move after they agreed" and "do it only after their explicit consent"), which costs a sentence without adding a new rule.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, preservation guarantees, consent workflow and failure conditions. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so path, folder and change_summary are already documented in the schema, including "empty string = top level" which the description merely repeats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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 and resource ("Move a note into another existing folder") and immediately clarifies the edge case (empty folder = top level). It also distinguishes the operation from its siblings by noting that title, links, backlinks and version history stay intact — i.e. this is not a copy/create operation like create_note or append_to_note.

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 states the when-to-use gate: ask the user first and move only after agreement in the chat, plus an extra consent requirement for a „Leitlinien/“ folder. It also gives a hard precondition ("The target folder must already exist – this tool never creates folders"), which routes the agent elsewhere when the folder is missing.

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