move_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the note 'changes location' and that wikilinks are 'optionally' updated, which are important side effects. However, it does not mention consequences like broken links if updateLinks is false, whether the move is reversible, or permission requirements. These gaps keep it at an adequate but incomplete level.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence efficiently adds two key clarifications (filename retention and wikilink updates) without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool is relatively simple with only three parameters, and the description covers the main behavior. However, given no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating what the function returns (e.g., success status or new path) and any error conditions (e.g., missing note or nonexistent destination folder). The description is adequate but leaves some contextual gaps.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by clarifying the effect of destinationFolder ('Keeps the same filename but changes location') and the purpose of updateLinks ('Optionally updates all wikilinks'). This extra context connects the parameters to real-world behavior, raising the score above baseline.

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 starts with a clear action: 'Move a note to a different folder.' It specifies the resource (note) and the operation (move) with a destination folder. It also adds differentiation by noting 'Keeps the same filename' and 'Optionally updates all wikilinks,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_note or batch_move.

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 implies usage for moving a single note to a new folder, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like batch_move or rename_note. There is no 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance. The singular 'a note' and the focus on folder relocation give some context, but the lack of explicit exclusions leaves room for ambiguity.

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