move_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a move operation (implying mutation) and optionally updates references, but lacks critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if the move is reversible, what happens to broken links if references aren't updated, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action and an optional feature. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or constraints. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's mutation nature, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like error conditions, return values, permissions needed, or how references are updated. For a move operation that could affect document integrity, more context is necessary to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'path' might be involved (though not listed in schema) and mentioning 'updateReferences' functionality. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of 'sourcePath' vs 'destinationPath' or clarify if 'path' is required, leaving 4 parameters largely undocumented. This partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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 verb 'move' and resource 'document' with the action 'from one location to another', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_document' (which changes name) and 'edit_document' (which modifies content). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_folder' or 'list_documents', which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rename_document' (for name changes) or 'create_folder' (for creating new locations). It mentions an optional feature ('updates references') but doesn't explain when this should be enabled or avoided, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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