Move managed documentation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description competently adds context: the DOC ID is stable across moves, and an empty folder targets the root. The expectedRevision optimistic-concurrency detail is valuable. No contradiction with the idempotentHint=true annotation; moving a doc to a location is plausibly idempotent.

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 focused sentences with zero waste. The first states the action and constraint; the second adds the critical ID-stability fact and root-folder convention. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple with a strong schema (100% coverage) and an output schema present. The description covers the key behavioral nuance (ID stability, root targeting) plus concurrency semantics via expectedRevision in the schema. Adequately complete for this level of complexity.

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 parameter descriptions are strong (id, folder with root semantics, expectedRevision with concurrency behavior). The description adds the 'DOC ID never changes' fact and root convention, which complements rather than duplicates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the load.

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 states 'Move a managed document to another folder below the managed docs root' — a specific verb (move), resource (managed document), and destination (folder below root). It distinguishes from sibling doc tools (create/list/patch) by focusing on relocation. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other doc operations.

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 implies when to use it (moving a document) but doesn't state when not to use it or name alternatives like project_doc_patch or project_doc_create. The 'DOC ID never changes' note and root-folder convention provide some usage context, but there's no explicit exclusion guidance.

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