move_page_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements, side effects (moving talk pages), and redirect behavior. However, it fails to mention destructive implications (the move permanently changes URLs), idempotency, error conditions (e.g., target exists), or rate limiting.

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 uses a clear structured format with explicit 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. While the Args list is lengthy due to 5 parameters needing documentation, every element serves a necessary purpose given the lack of schema descriptions. No redundant or filler text is present.

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 presence of an output schema, the brief return value description is sufficient. The description covers the essential authentication and functional parameters for a move operation. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should disclose error handling, permission requirements beyond basic auth, or collision behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates adequately by documenting all 5 parameters in the Args section: from_title, to_title, reason, move_talk, and no_redirect. Each includes semantic meaning and default values, effectively bridging the schema gap.

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 tool 'Move (rename) a wiki page' with specific verb and resource. The parenthetical '(rename)' helpfully clarifies wiki terminology, implicitly distinguishing it from content editing (edit_page_tool) or deletion (delete_page_tool). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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 mentions 'Requires authentication' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_page_tool or delete_page_tool. It does not describe prerequisites (e.g., page must exist) or when moving is preferred over other operations.

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