clio_move_document

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive and requires a confirm_token on the second call, which is critical behavioral context. However, it omits details like reversibility or error responses.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical warning about destructiveness and confirmation follows immediately. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description conveys the core purpose and a key safety requirement, but for a two-step destructive process it does not explain the first-call flow, what the first call returns (e.g., a token), or how the confirm_token should be supplied. This leaves important workflow ambiguity for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning for confirm_token ('requires confirm_token on the second call') but does not explain id or parent_folder_id. While those parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's action ('Move a document to a different folder'), with a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document, update_document, and delete_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?

The description implies usage for moving documents between folders and includes a caution about being destructive and requiring confirm_token on the second call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include exclusions.

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