move_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that paths resolve against the vault root, but is silent on the critical mutation questions: what happens if to_path already exists (overwrite, error, or merge), whether intermediate folders are created, and whether the source is deleted or copied.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the path-resolution caveat immediately after. Nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but this is a destructive-style mutation tool with no annotations and no description of collision or failure behavior. For a move/overwrite-capable operation, that is a significant omission an agent could get wrong.

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, and it does partially by establishing that both paths are vault-relative rather than absolute. However, it adds nothing about path format (extensions, folder separators), or validity constraints for either path, leaving meaningful gaps for both parameters.

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 and resource ('Move a note') and names both endpoints of the operation, so it is clearly distinguishable from read_note, write_note, and list_notes in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the verb 'move' carries the meaning on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over write_note (e.g., rename vs. content change) or any precondition such as the source note needing to exist. The agent is left to infer the use case entirely from the verb.

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