Move note

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation but say nothing about mechanics; the description fills that gap with extension rewriting, trailing-slash semantics, and optimistic concurrency via `expected_checksum` gated on the revision from bm_read. It also discloses the cross-project refusal rule, which an agent would otherwise only learn from a failed call.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, destination semantics, extension rule, concurrency guard, and the cross-project exclusion. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with an output schema that covers return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs before calling: target selection, path formatting, concurrency safety, and the unsupported cross-project 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?

Schema coverage is already 83%, and the description adds real meaning on top: `destination` is project-relative, a trailing '/' changes its interpretation to a parent folder, and `expected_checksum` acts as a conditional guard rather than a plain value. `project` and `output_format` are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb pair (move/rename) and resource (a note or a directory), and binds each to its own parameter (`identifier` for notes, `path` for directories). An agent can tell what this does and which input shape applies without reading the schema.

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?

Explicitly rules out the cross-project case and prescribes the alternative workflow ('bm_read, bm_write there, then bm_delete'), which is genuine when-not guidance. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `move_note` tool, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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