move-note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: exact title matching, folder scoping, and failure conditions (missing, ambiguous, destination nonexistent). It doesn't state outcomes like whether the note is removed from the source folder, but the act of moving is clear and the output schema likely covers return values.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the optional parameter caveat, then failure conditions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the main behavioral contract: what it does, how to disambiguate, and when it fails. It doesn't elaborate on return values, but the output schema can address that. The main gap is absence of details about how 'folder' names are resolved (e.g., exact match vs. case-insensitive), but this is a minor omission.

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 explain parameters. It does: 'title' is the exact title to match, 'folder' is the destination, and 'source_folder' scopes the lookup to avoid homonym ambiguity. This gives meaning beyond the bare schema properties, though it doesn't detail edge cases like case sensitivity or folder naming formats.

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 tool moves an existing Apple Note by exact title into a destination folder. The verb 'Move' and resource 'Apple Note' specify the action and target, and details like 'matched by exact title' and failure conditions distinguish this from sibling tools like update-note or get-note.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (moving notes between folders) and explains the optional source_folder for disambiguation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but implies that moving is distinct from other note operations, and the context is sufficient to infer the intended use.

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