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

Annotations already flag destructive/write/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: attachments under the path travel with the move, links to them in notes are rewritten, write access is required on both ends, and cross-brain moves are restricted to the source brain's owner. These side effects and permission constraints are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, then side effects, then the one parameter needing special care. No filler and nothing repeated from 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?

For a destructive, 4-parameter move tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, side effects (attachment travel, link rewriting) and cross-brain limits. It omits collision/overwrite behavior and any hint of failure modes beyond the refused-branch note in the schema.

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 50%, and the description compensates by clarifying to_workspace as a cross-brain destination with an owner-only restriction, and by defining 'from' implicitly as a path prefix ('attachments under the path travel with it'). The 'from'/'to' parameters still have no explicit description in either the schema or the text, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource scope: 'Rename or move a note, attachment or folder.' The rename/move semantics plus the attachment/folder coverage clearly separate it from write_file, patch_file, append_file and delete_file in the sibling list. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is not a 5.

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?

Provides preconditions rather than usage routing: '(write access on both ends)' and 'to_workspace moves it into another brain (only the source brain's owner can).' It never says when to choose this over a write/patch/delete sibling or what happens if the destination already exists. Usage is implied by the constraints rather than spelled out.

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