vibemk_move_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the folder moves to a different parent but says nothing about critical side effects—most notably whether child folders and contained hosts move along, whether existing attributes are preserved, or whether the destination must already exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded, with the action stated first. The emoji adds little functional value and the phrase 'Move folder' appears twice, a minor redundancy, but overall it is efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 tool is a moderate-complexity mutation with no output schema, yet the description omits important operational details: what happens to the folder's contents (hosts/subfolders), whether the destination must be a valid existing parent, and what the tool returns or confirms on success. An agent cannot fully predict the outcome of calling it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'folder' (Folder path to move) and 'destination' (New parent folder path). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('folder'), and clarifies the scope ('to different parent'). It distinguishes the tool from folder siblings like create, delete, update, and get, though it is slightly redundant in repeating 'Move folder' twice. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_folder, which could also alter a folder's position.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like vibemk_update_folder (which might also change folder location/attributes) and vibemk_get_folders, the description provides no exclusions or context for selecting move over update. Usage is only implied by the name.

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