move_documentRelocate a document to a different parent or notebook by specifying its ID/path and destination ID/name.
Move a document under a different parent document, or into a different notebook. to may be a parent document ID/path, or a notebook ID/name to move it to that notebook's root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Destination parent document ID/path, or notebook ID/name. | |
| doc | Yes | Document ID or path to move. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose non-obvious destination semantics (a notebook target places the document at that notebook's root), which goes beyond a bare 'move'. But it is silent on permissions, whether descendants move with the document, collision/overwrite behavior, and reversibility of a mutation.
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 compact sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter clarification. Every clause 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?
For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and destination semantics adequately. Against zero annotations, though, it leaves the safety and side-effect profile entirely unstated, which is thin for a mutating operation.
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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the `to` parameter's dual meaning and adds the 'notebook's root' detail, which is a marginal value-add over the schema text rather than new syntax or format guidance.
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 plus resource ('Move a document') and immediately disambiguates the two modes of the operation: reparenting under another document vs. relocating into a notebook. This is clearly separable from siblings like rename_document, remove_document, and create_document, which do different things to a document.
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?
Usage is implied by the action ('move a document' when you want it elsewhere), and the description usefully clarifies what each destination type means. However, it names no alternatives, no preconditions (e.g. needing write access to both source and destination), and no cases where the move would fail or should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.