move

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description goes beyond that by naming exactly what gets mutated (all links in concepts, index.md, log.md, plus the moved concept's own relative links) and by specifying the dry-run preview. It does not address whether a partially-applied move is atomic or what happens on link-rewrite failure, which is the main remaining gap for a destructive operation.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its mutations, then the scope boundary, then the safe-usage notes. No sentence is redundant with the others; even the inline "§6.1" reference adds targeting precision at zero cost.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the essential risk surface: what is rewritten, the bundle boundary, and how to preview. What is missing is the shape of the diff returned under apply=False and any failure/rollback behavior, but nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 carries the burden: it explains `apply` concretely (False shows the diff) and implies `bundle` via the single-bundle scoping rule, and "move or rename a concept" hints at the file/to pairing. However the semantics of `to` and `file` (path format, relative vs /-absolute input, rename-vs-relocate distinction) are never spelled out, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 pair (move or rename) and the resource (a concept), plus the full side-effect set (rewriting relative and /-absolute links in concepts, index.md and log.md). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling `migrate`, which handles cross-bundle moves, so an agent can choose between them without reading 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?

Gives an explicit boundary condition ("Stays inside one bundle; `migrate` moves between bundles"), a stated prerequisite ("Check `links` first"), and a dry-run escape hatch ("apply=False shows the diff"). The when-to-use, when-to-use-something-else, and how-to-safely-preview are all present.

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