concept_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: validation-first ordering, batch abort on any invalid entry, KB-wide link rewriting unless disabled, cross-map/services scope, asset/satellite handling for expanded concepts, and the notable failure mode of a mid-batch filesystem error naming both IDs with no rollback. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive rename.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and input modes come first, followed by validation, link rewriting, scope, and failure behavior. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the single long paragraph packs several concerns together.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description is thorough: it covers atomicity/validation, the two input modes, link-rewrite side effects, scope, and failure semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it clarifies the exclusivity between the single source_id/target_id pair and the moves array, and states the default behavior of rewrite_links. It does not explain the 'reason' parameter (though the schema does) or the finding output shape, leaving minor gaps.

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+resource+scope: 'Moves concepts to new IDs in one commit.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like concept_patch or concept_write, which would edit in place rather than re-identify. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It explains the two mutually exclusive input modes and the rewrite_links default, which is operational guidance, but never says when to choose this tool over siblings such as concept_patch or concept_write. Usage is implied by the rename semantics rather than stated against alternatives.

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