uselink_move_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly implies a mutating action ('move') and discloses the default folder behavior. However, it does not mention possible side effects, permission requirements, or what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by parameter guidance. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core action and the main parameter behavior. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits return value, error conditions, and constraints (e.g., whether folder_id must belong to the target project). This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 low (33%), but the description compensates by explicitly stating project_id is required, folder_id is optional, and omitting folder_id lands at the project root. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though document_id is not discussed (it is self-evident).

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+resource: 'Move a document into a different project and/or folder.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like move_folder or move_project, and specifies the destination scope.

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?

It provides clear context: move a document between projects/folders. It explains the required project_id and the optional folder_id, including the default behavior of landing at the project root. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use the tool.

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