move_to_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important side effect of unlinking from all current collections, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, return values, or what happens if the object is already in the target collection, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and side effect. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and minimal schema detail, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., object existence, collection existence), error handling, return output, and edge cases. With an output schema present but not described, the agent is left guessing.

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 must explain the parameters. It does nothing beyond restating the parameter names. No additional context like expected types, formats, or relationships between object_name and collection_name is given.

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 clearly states the verb 'Move', the resource 'object', and the target 'collection', and includes the key side effect of unlinking from all current collections. This distinguishes it from sibling collection-related tools like instance_collection or create_collection.

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 implies the usage context (moving objects between collections) but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives like instance_collection or set_parent. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative references are provided.

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