Move Item To Organization

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds that the tool returns a moved item summary with 'normal redaction rules,' but does not elaborate on side effects like whether the item is removed from the previous org or personal vault. This is adequate but does not deeply disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, explains the optional parameter, and mentions the return behavior. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering read-only and destructiveness, the description adequately covers purpose, required vs optional parameters, and return format (summary with redaction). It clarifies the distinction between collections and folders, which is important for correct usage. Slightly more detail about the return summary could improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that collectionIds must be organization collections, not personal folders, which goes beyond the schema's description ('not folder ids'). This extra context helps the agent understand the parameter's semantic constraints.

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 the action ('Move an existing vault item into the required organizationId') and specifies the resource (vault item) and target (organization). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, or update by using a unique verb and emphasizes that collectionIds are organization collections, not personal folders.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: moving an item to an organization with optional assignment of organization collections. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as using other tools for editing collections without moving or personal folder operations.

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