move_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions required, whether child blocks move with the page, reversibility, or failure modes. Only the trivial fact that it returns moved page info is stated, which the output schema already covers.

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-loads the one-line purpose before the args list; little wasted text. The 'Returns' line is redundant given the output schema but is brief and harmless.

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 output schema absolves it of explaining return values, and all parameters are named. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the absence of any permission, side-effect, or failure context leaves a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does document all three parameters and, valuably, specifies the accepted values for parent_type ('page_id' or 'database_id'), which the schema does not encode as an enum. It stops short of explaining ID formats or validation rules.

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') plus the scope ('to a different parent'), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_page or update_block. No explicit sibling differentiation is offered, but the operation is unique enough not to need it.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when to re-parent versus recreating a page). Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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