Move or rename a hand-written note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding two traits the annotations don't carry: a non-overwrite guarantee and a side effect where broken links are reported. That is meaningful mutation context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the scope/behavior come before the example. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully covers the observable result (refused overwrites, reported dangling links). What is missing is smaller: no indication of what happens if the destination directory does not exist or what the tool returns on success.

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 100% and both parameters have examples in the schema ('Notes/Harbor Ledger.md' and note id/title/[[wikilink]]). The description adds no path syntax, length limit, or wikilink-vs-path resolution details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pair of verbs (move/rename) against a specific resource (a hand-written note) and scopes it to Notes/ and Captures/, with a concrete example of promoting a capture into Notes/. It never names the siblings it must be distinguished from (brain_edit, brain_write, brain_capture), so the separation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 'promote a capture into Notes/' example implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus brain_edit/brain_write, no stated prerequisites, and no conditions under which the tool should not be used. Usage is suggested, not specified.

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