move_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint, dual write grants, which the agent could not learn from the schema. It omits, however, whether the move removes access in the source space, what happens on version mismatch, and whether the operation is reversible, all material 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the permission constraint is attached directly to the action. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given three undocumented parameters.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description supplies only one fact (write grants in both spaces). Nothing covers version-conflict behavior, return values, or failure modes, so an agent cannot safely predict what the call does.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Both spaces" weakly hints that space_id is the destination (source inferred elsewhere), but memory_id and expected_version, which implies optimistic concurrency and is critical to invoking correctly, are never explained.

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 has a clear verb ("move") and a scope (ownership transfer between spaces), but the resource (a memory) is only implied by the tool name, not stated in the text. It also doesn't clarify how it differs from near-siblings like update_memory, archive_memory, or migrate_secret, leaving the agent to infer that this is a cross-space relocation rather than a field edit.

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 sentence "requires write grants in both spaces" gives a genuine precondition, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over update_memory or archive_memory, and no mention of when not to use it (e.g. same-space edits, or when only read access exists).

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