move_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses AppleScript verification, validation, and maintenance of note content/metadata. It also mentions support for nested paths and error handling. However, it does not explicitly confirm if the operation is a move vs. copy+delete, though 'maintains content and metadata' implies non-destructive behavior.

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 structured with bullet points and a clear first sentence, but it is longer than necessary (10 lines). Some information, like 'AppleScript verifies ID and name match before moving,' is repeated in both features and requirements. It could be more concise while retaining key points.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, requirements, and verification process. It lists essential requirements (note existence, target folder existence). It does not cover failure scenarios or edge cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that note_id and note_name are used for verification, and target_folder_path supports nested folders up to 5 levels deep. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Move a note from one folder to another in Apple Notes by ID with AppleScript verification.' It specifies the verb (move), resource (note), and key method (by ID). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_folder, which operates on a different resource.

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 state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for moving notes with verification but lacks exclusions or references to siblings. The context signals and sibling list suggest differentiation by resource, but no direct guidance is provided in the description.

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