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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: an ownership authorization requirement and the fact that encrypted items can still be renamed/moved because title and folder are not encrypted. The note that 'a folder exists while something is in it' also hints at implicit lifecycle behavior for folders. It stops short of stating what happens on a title collision or a nonexistent folder path.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then folder semantics, then permission and encryption caveats. Each sentence carries a distinct fact with no padding, though the folder-path sentence slightly duplicates the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the decision-critical facts an agent needs: owner-only authorization, encrypted-item eligibility, and folder path conventions. It could be stronger by stating whether a move into a new path auto-creates folders or fails, but nothing essential is missing for a 4-parameter mutation.

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 id, kind, title, and folder are already fully documented, including the pattern, enum, maxLength, and the 'leave it out to keep' semantics. The description's folder-path explanation ('work/launch', '/' as top level) largely restates the schema and adds no new syntax or constraint detail, so the 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 pair (rename, move) and the resources it acts on (note, whiteboard), and covers the 'both at once' case explicitly. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_note, update_note, and write_note_ciphertext, which address content rather than title/location.

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 useful preconditions ('Only the owner can rename or move an item') and clarifies that encrypted items are still eligible, which helps an agent decide it can call this at all. However, it never contrasts with update_note or explains when to prefer this over other mutation paths, so alternative selection is left implicit.

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