move_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the hierarchical move of child documents, the requirement to specify at least one target parameter, and the confirmation message return. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, important note, usage guidelines, args, returns). Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains child document behavior, the third specifies parameter requirements, and the bullet points provide usage context. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, behavior, and parameters. It explains the hierarchical move effect and return message. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid IDs, permission issues) and doesn't fully describe the return value format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all three parameters: document_id is the item to move, collection_id is for moving between collections, and parent_document_id is for nesting. It clarifies the 'either/or' logic and optionality, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., ID structure).

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 clearly states the specific action ('relocates') and resource ('document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_document' or 'delete_document'. It specifies the destination ('different collection or parent document'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicitly lists four use cases (e.g., 'Reorganize your document hierarchy', 'Move a document to a more relevant collection'), providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also specifies parameter requirements ('You must specify either collection_id or parent_document_id'), which helps differentiate from alternatives like 'update_document'.

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