move_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and two constraints (extension matching and ignored folders), but does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with the action stated first and constraints second. It is front-loaded, has zero waste, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 description covers the core action and key constraints. With an output schema present, the return value is presumably documented. The only notable omission is behavior when the destination path already exists (overwrite vs error), but this is a minor gap given the concise nature.

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 100%, so both parameters (from_path, to_path) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the constraint that source and destination extensions must match, which is not in the schema, and clarifies that ignored folders are blocked. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Move or rename a note') and clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_note, write_note, and delete_note by specifying the operation and adding constraints (extension matching, ignored folders). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to use it instead of other tools, but the purpose is self-evident from the name and description. It does provide usage constraints (extensions must match, ignored folders blocked) that help an agent decide whether the operation is valid. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance is a minor gap.

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