vault_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses automatic link fixing, MOC migration, atomic commit behavior, confirmation requirements for new domains, and that a diff is returned. This goes well beyond the bare move/rename semantics and gives an agent a realistic model of the tool's effects.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines the operation, clarifies path semantics with a concrete example, explains the archive special case, and states the confirmation requirement. The most important behavioral fact (link fixing) is front-loaded.

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 complex multi-purpose tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input semantics, the domain-MOC behavior, the archive/unarchive case, the confirmation flow, and the expected user-facing output. An agent has enough to call it correctly in most scenarios.

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 100%, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds real value by explaining how 'to' encodes the operation kind, that 99-archive can be both source and destination for archive/unarchive, and when confirm_novo_dominio is required. This enriches the schema descriptions without repeating them.

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 set ('Moves, renames, promotes or archives a note') and precisely identifies the resource (a vault note) and the core side effect (fixing every link). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_edit_note and vault_delete by explaining the unified path-based operation with domain MOC migration.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for any move/rename/promote/archive operation that should stay link-consistent. It gives concrete path examples and explains special cases like 99-archive and confirm_novo_dominio. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or names alternatives like vault_edit_note for content-only edits.

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