move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well by explicitly stating that the page keeps its content and properties and only the location changes. It does not mention permissions, errors, or response shape, but the core side-effect model—non-destructive relocation—is clearly disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, the second clarifies the behavioral guarantee, and the third gives concrete usage examples. The information is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and examples. The main gaps are return-value/error semantics and explicit sibling differentiation, but these do not prevent correct invocation for the primary use case.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters clearly, and the description adds useful semantic nuance by framing 'to' as a parent page or database and giving practical examples. This goes beyond the baseline expected from the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Move a Notion page to a different parent page or database.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from the sibling tools by defining the scope as relocation, with examples of moving to an Archive or database.

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 establishes clear use context: move content between locations while preserving content and properties, and gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives like 'update,' so it stops short of a full 5.

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