migrate

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real substance beyond them: inbound links in both bundles are rewritten, the concept's own `/` links become relative (with a lint warning for cross-bundle), links from unrelated bundles are untouched, and apply=False yields a diff preview. That is precisely the mutation semantics an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 sibling differentiation is front-loaded in the first clause, and the subsequent sentences on link rewriting and dry-run each add decision-relevant information. It is dense but not padded; the link-rewriting detail could be compressed slightly.

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 destructive five-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation-level parameter docs, the description covers consequences, side effects and the dry-run escape hatch well. The only real hole is the unexplained `file` and `bundle` inputs.

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 carry the full burden. It documents `to_bundle` ('.' for root), `to` (default: same path) and `apply` (False shows diff), but leaves `file` and `bundle` entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for two of five parameters.

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 — moving a concept into another bundle of the knowledgebase — and immediately contrasts it with the sibling `move`, which stays within one bundle. An agent can distinguish the two 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from `move` when the destination is a different bundle, which is the key selection decision among siblings. It does not mention other adjacent tools such as `rename` or `archive`, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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