Move Organize Node

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it is experimental and that only sidebar placement changes, which provides helpful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence gives the purpose and experimental nature; the second clarifies the effect. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simple function (move node) and good schema/annotations, the description adequately explains the core behavior. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but for a straightforward move operation it's near-complete.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it implies the destination choices (folder or root) but doesn't detail parameter syntax or behaviors like indexing. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('move'), resource ('AFFiNE organize folder or link node'), and destination ('another folder or root'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_organize_link (creates new) and delete_organize_link (removes), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: reorganizing sidebar without affecting content ('preserves the target... changes only sidebar placement'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the effect is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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