kb_organize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose non-obvious behavior: items are processed independently, failures are reported per item (i.e. partial success is possible), and there is a hard cap of 200 items per call. It stops short of overwrite/collision semantics and whether destination directories are auto-created, which matters 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?

Batch capability is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the item shape, then the failure and size semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information and the example does the work of a paragraph of prose.

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, and per-item failure reporting is covered. However, for a destructive-ish batch mutation with zero annotations, an agent still lacks answers on overwrite behavior and on whether target directories must pre-exist (kb_create_directory exists as a sibling, hinting they may not).

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% and the single 'moves' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties: string, so the schema documents nothing. The description compensates well by naming dest_dir, marking new_name optional, and showing a concrete item literal. It never explicitly defines 'src' beyond the example, nor whether paths are relative to the KB root, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

A specific verb pair (move/rename), an explicit scope ('many files in ONE call'), and a worked example that names the sibling that produces the inputs (kb_scan_inbox). The word 'many' plus 'in ONE call' implicitly separates it from the single-file siblings kb_move_file/kb_rename_file, so an agent can pick it without opening both schemas.

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 parenthetical 'e.g. everything from kb_scan_inbox' sketches the intended scenario, which is real guidance. But it offers no exclusions or explicit comparison against kb_move_file or kb_rename_file, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether dest_dir must already exist). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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