move_node_to_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: the cut-vs-copy distinction and the 'top-level node' constraint. It omits other relevant behavior such as whether the target page must pre-exist, permission requirements, what happens to existing placements, or the return shape.

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 tightly scoped sentences with the primary move action front-loaded and the copy variant immediately after. There is minor redundancy between 'copy it there (duplicate into page, keeping the original)' and 'Set copy: true to keep the original,' which slightly repeats the same idea.

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?

For a cross-page mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented in the schema, the description covers the core modes but leaves the reader without permission, return, or failure context. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 only 50%, so nodeId and targetPageId have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by implying nodeId must be a top-level node and targetPageId is a page, but it adds little beyond the schema's own copy/name documentation, which already covers the two documented parameters. A 3 fits given the partial coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (move/cut) and resource (top-level node) with the destination (another page), and clarifies the alternate copy behavior. It is far more specific than the name alone, though it never names or contrasts the closely related siblings move_node, reparent_node, or clone_node_into_parent.

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 gives a clear rule for the copy flag ('Set copy: true to keep the original'), which is genuinely useful guidance on mode selection. However, it offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus move_node, reparent_node, or clone_node_into_parent, leaving the choice between overlapping siblings to inference.

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