move

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not say what happens if the destination already contains an item of the same name, whether moving a folder moves its children, or whether the source is 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter example immediately after. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but this is an unannotated mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and a sibling set full of overlapping file operations. Missing conflict behavior, folder-recursion semantics, and to_folder format leave real gaps.

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 0% with two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the item format well (folder path + title, with an example), but to_folder is left completely undefined with no format, path style, or root-level convention.

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 names a specific verb (move) and the resources it applies to (a link or folder), which an agent can separate from siblings like rename, trash, and sort. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use move versus rename, trash, or sort, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual help is a format example for the item parameter, which is not usage routing.

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