move_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that a move preserves ID, content, comments and subpages, which is exactly the reassurance an agent needs before a mutation. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens to the old parent's ordering, so it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by preservation guarantees, the scope restriction with its alternative, and a compact Args block. No sentence is filler and the ordering puts the decision-relevant facts first.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover idempotency and safety. Combined with full parameter documentation, the definition is nearly complete; only error/permission behavior on a cross-parent move is left unstated.

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 carries the whole burden, and it does document all three parameters including the non-obvious constraint that parent_type must be "page_id" (the schema only shows a bare string default). The two ID parameters are described only by restating their names, which is a minor gap but they are largely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Move a page under a new parent page") and immediately bounds the scope: only page parents, with copy_page_to_parent named as the route for database placement. An agent can distinguish this from the copy sibling without opening 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?

Gives an explicit when-not and a named alternative: "Only page parents are supported; to place a page in a database use copy_page_to_parent." The selection condition is stated rather than inferred.

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