move_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the no-overwrite failure condition, create_dirs default behavior, and the wikilink rewriting side effect. It also specifies the exact return object shape, providing exceptional transparency for a mutating operation.

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 five focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by important conditions and return info. No filler or redundant content; each sentence contributes essential semantics. The line breaks aid readability without adding bulk.

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 the moderate complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: path constraints, overwrite prevention, directory creation, link rewriting side effect, and return values. Even though an output schema exists, the description redundantly but helpfully states the return shape. Sibling tools are distinct, and no major context is missing.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the path format for source_path/dest_path, the boolean default for create_dirs, and the constraint that both paths must be in WRITE_VAULT. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by specifying behavior like failing on existing dest_path and directory creation.

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 the specific verb 'Move' with source_path and dest_path, clearly identifying the tool's operation. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_note and update_note by describing a file relocation with path requirements. The vault/relative/path.md format further clarifies the domain.

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 strong contextual guidance: both paths must be within WRITE_VAULT, no overwrite is allowed, and create_dirs defaults to true. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the constraints and behavior make appropriate usage clear. A slight deduction for not naming alternative sibling tools or exclusion cases.

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