kb_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by stating that node_token is preserved and old links remain valid — a stability guarantee not derivable from the schema. However, for a mutation it omits permission requirements, what happens to children of the moved node, and whether moving under a descendant is rejected.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste — the action comes first, the invariance guarantee second. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 not be explained. But for an unannotated mutation with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps around permissions, failure modes, and the 'reason' field.

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; it only clarifies that node_token is unchanged by the operation, leaving target_parent_node_token and especially the optional 'reason' parameter unexplained. Two of three required parameters have no semantic elaboration.

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 ('把页面移动到另一个父节点下' = move a page under another parent node), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like kb_rename or kb_outline, so the agent gets no routing help.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., kb_rename for name changes, kb_create for new pages), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the context of use entirely.

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