move_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions 'updating database' (implying mutation) and 'maintaining links' (hinting at referential integrity), but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, side effects, or what 'maintaining links' entails operationally. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action, outcome, and key behavioral aspect ('maintaining links'). It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making every word count without unnecessary elaboration.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core action and hints at behavior, but lacks details on parameters, error handling, and operational context that would be needed for full agent understanding, though the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 description must compensate but adds minimal param semantics. It implies 'identifier' selects the note and 'destination_path' specifies the new location, but doesn't explain formats (e.g., path syntax, identifier types) or the optional 'project' parameter's role. This fails to bridge the coverage gap effectively.

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 action ('Move a note') and the resource ('note'), specifying the outcome ('updating database and maintaining links'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_note' or 'delete_note' by focusing on relocation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'write_note' or 'view_note' in terms of purpose.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note existence, permissions), exclusions (e.g., when not to move), or comparisons to siblings like 'edit_note' for content changes or 'delete_note' for removal, leaving usage context unclear.

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