Move Organize Node

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the key invariant that only sidebar placement changes while the underlying document/tag/collection is preserved, and flags the experimental status.

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 tight sentences, with the experimental caveat and the effect of the operation front-loaded. Nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so the description need only cover scope and risk, which it does. Minor gaps remain: no mention of error behavior (e.g., moving a folder into itself) or whether the operation is reversible, which matters for an experimental mutation.

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% and each parameter is documented, so baseline is 3. The phrase 'to another folder or root' reinforces the optionality of parentId, but no extra syntax or defaults (e.g., fractional index semantics) are added 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?

States a specific verb and resource: moving an AFFiNE *organize* folder or link node to another folder or root. The 'organize/sidebar' framing distinguishes it from content-level siblings like move_doc or move_block, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 line about preserving the target document/tag/collection and changing only sidebar placement implicitly tells the agent this is a rearranging tool, not a content move. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. move_doc guidance, and the 'Experimental' tag signals risk without saying what to fall back to.

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