Move Document in Sidebar

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the order of operations (destination added before source removed), cycle rejection, and explicit reporting of partial outcomes. This is critical for an agent to anticipate side effects and understand the tool's safety profile, especially given that destructiveHint is false but a source link may be removed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and packs in essential behavioral details without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's complexity (potential partial outcomes, cycles, and order sensitivity), the description comprehensively covers the key edge cases and execution guarantee. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail return values, and the behavioral notes sufficiently prepare an agent for expected side effects.

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 75%, so the schema already documents three of four parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying the order involving toParentDocId and fromParentDocId, and by alluding to cycle rejection which constrains valid values. However, workspaceId remains undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not provide additional syntax or format details 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('move') and the resource ('a doc in the AFFiNE sidebar'), which precisely identifies the tool's function. This differentiates it from sibling tools like move_organize_node that operate on different entity types, and from delete_doc or create_doc which have distinct purposes.

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 usage through its statement of moving docs in the sidebar, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when-not-to-use. For instance, it does not contrast with move_organize_node or mention scenarios where adding a link without moving might be preferred. The behavioral details suggest expectations but do not provide explicit selection guidance.

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