kb_move_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable side effects — the search index stays in sync and INDEX.md refreshes automatically — but never states what happens on a destination collision (overwrite vs. error) or whether the target directory must already exist, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first two lines, and the parameter notes are compact. The Sphinx-style ':param' markup is slightly verbose but each line carries real information.

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?

All three parameters are semantically explained, an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the automatic index/INDEX.md behavior is stated. The main remaining hole is overwrite/concurrency behavior at the destination.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: src_rel gets concrete path examples including the folder case, dest_dir_rel gets an example directory, and new_name explains that the extension is retained when omitted. It does not clarify whether paths are vault-relative or absolute, nor whether dest_dir_rel must pre-exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Move (and optionally rename) one file or folder') and adds a secondary capability ('restores items from _Trash'). It explicitly routes bulk work to kb_organize, but does not distinguish the rename capability from the sibling kb_rename_file, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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?

Clear guidance for the single-vs-bulk decision ('For many, use kb_organize') and a useful note that this also covers restoring from trash. It stops short of an explicit rule for when to rename via kb_move_file versus kb_rename_file.

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