move_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states 'move' but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the note is removed from the source notebook), error conditions (e.g., if a note or notebook does not exist), or any authorization requirements. The mutation aspect is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to meaning. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

With no annotations and a low schema coverage, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain the return value, error handling, or what happens to the original note location. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient guidance for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It maps note_ids to 'one or more existing active notes' and notebook to 'an existing notebook', but it does not clarify whether notebook is a name or ID, or the exact format expected. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 states a specific action (move) on specific resources (existing active notes to an existing notebook). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note, list_notebooks, or set_starred. The constraints 'existing active' and 'existing' add precision.

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 the tool is for moving notes between notebooks but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It hints that only existing notes and notebooks are valid, which implies prerequisites, but does not direct the agent to list or search tools. No explicit exclusions or routing guidance.

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