move_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether the move is destructive (e.g., removes from original folder), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error if target doesn't exist). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Move a document to a different folder'—front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., side effects, error handling), return values, or usage context, failing to compensate for the missing structured data, which is insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (documentId, targetFolderId, position). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., position's effect) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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 action ('Move') and resource ('a document'), specifying it relocates to 'a different folder'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_document' or 'delete_document' by focusing on relocation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools (e.g., 'set_include_in_compile' might involve positioning).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for moving folders), or compare to siblings like 'rename_document' for name changes or 'write_document' for content updates, leaving usage context implied.

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