Move Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the operation type and says nothing about what happens if new_id already exists (overwrite vs. error), whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required — critical for a mutation whose name implies destruction of the original identifier.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification more than disciplined conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter documentation and a name implying overwrite risk, the definition omits too much for an agent to call it safely.

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% and neither parameter is explained. The description hints that new_id is the rename target, but it does not clarify whether new_id is a new name, path, or identifier, nor what the distinction between the two required string params is.

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/rename) and the resource (a note), which is enough for an agent to identify the operation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like update_note, which also modifies an existing note, but the core 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no signal on when to choose move_note over update_note or how it relates to delete_note/create_note workflows.

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