Move Document in Sidebar

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing transactional ordering (destination link validated and added before the source link is removed), cycle rejection as a guardrail, and explicit reporting of partial outcomes. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from destructiveHint=false and are essential for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence packs four distinct behavioral facts (validation, ordering, cycle rejection, partial reporting) without repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the mutation semantics are well covered. The only gap is workspaceId, which has no schema description and is not mentioned in the description either, leaving its role unscoped for a multi-workspace caller.

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 75%, so the schema already documents docId, toParentDocId and the optional fromParentDocId. The description adds the sequencing semantics — that the destination link is written first and the source link removed only afterward — which explains the practical consequence of omitting fromParentDocId beyond the schema's own note.

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 doc within the AFFiNE sidebar. The sidebar framing implicitly separates it from move_block and move_organize_node, but neither sibling is named, so an agent must infer which move tool applies to which structure.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'in the AFFiNE sidebar' and 'the optional source link' signal this is a hierarchy re-parenting operation. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to the many sibling move tools (move_block, move_organize_node) that could be confused with it.

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