Move Page To Space

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that target-space members gain access, old-space members may lose it, and inaccessible child pages stay behind as top-level pages in the source space. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before a mutation. It stops short of stating whether access changes are fully reversible or what permissions the caller needs, and it does not contradict the destructiveHint=false annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then consequences, then edge case, then client behavior. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the two parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the non-obvious effects (access changes, orphaned child pages, confirmation). Nothing material is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 3, and the description adds real meaning by clarifying that the `page` parameter acts recursively on the whole child tree and that `space_id` denotes a different space than the page's current one. It adds nothing about accepted id formats, but the schema already covers those.

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 (move) and resource (page with its child pages) plus the exact destination semantics ('top level of another space'), which distinguishes it from the sibling move_page without needing to open either 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?

The cross-space, top-level-only scope implies when this tool applies, and the confirmation hint ('Clients that can ask the person first do so') signals a human-in-the-loop workflow. However, it never names move_page as the alternative for within-space moves or states prerequisites such as required permissions, so selection guidance remains inferred.

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