move_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool performs a move/rename operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like permission requirements, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling for invalid paths, or if it updates internal links. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Move or rename a note') and specifies the context ('in the Obsidian vault'). There is zero wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (a mutation operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly. More context is needed for adequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's details about source and destination paths. According to rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 or rename') and resource ('a note'), specifying the target location ('new location in the Obsidian vault'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_note', 'delete_note', and 'update_note' by focusing on relocation/renaming rather than creation, deletion, or content modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'manage_folder' which might also handle file movements.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to non-existent folders), or comparisons with siblings like 'update_note' for renaming or 'manage_folder' for broader file operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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