knowledge_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: preservation of citations/verification, supersessions pointer (unless leave_pointer=false), atomic batch operations with rollback, and collision rejection. Missing details on old slug accessibility after move and return value, but overall transparent.

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 well-structured with bullet points for modes, front-loaded with the main action. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, updated page info). It also omits potential restrictions on re-domain (e.g., destination domain existence) and reversibility. However, it covers modes, constraints, and alternatives adequately for typical use.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining modes, parameter relationships (e.g., from_domain_prefix requires to_domain_prefix), constraints (collision -> use knowledge_merge), and atomic behavior, going well beyond the schema 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 the tool re-keys or re-domains a knowledge page in place, preserving citations and verification history. It distinguishes three modes (single-page, batch by slug list, batch by domain prefix) and explicitly contrasts with knowledge_merge for collision scenarios.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode, including prerequisites (e.g., new_domain required for batch-by-slugs, from_domain_prefix requires to_domain_prefix) and alternatives (use knowledge_merge when new_slug collides). This helps the agent choose the correct tool and mode.

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