Move note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses important side effects: folders are created automatically, all link types are updated (wikilinks, embeds, relative markdown links), and emptied source folders are pruned. It does not mention what happens if the destination path already exists, which is a notable gap for a mutating move operation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action and primary side effects are front-loaded, and the usage preference is a concise final sentence that earns its place by aiding tool selection.

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?

The description covers purpose, key side effects, and an explicit usage alternative. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly in the common case. It could be more complete by stating behavior when the destination already exists, but overall it is nearly sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters as vault-relative paths. The description adds minor context (folders created automatically) but does not elaborate on path format, edge cases, or conflict behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move or rename') with a clear resource ('a note') and explains the full scope: automatic folder creation, link updates across the vault, and pruning of emptied folders. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_note, edit_note, and delete_note without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

It explicitly says 'Prefer this over create+delete for renaming,' giving the agent a direct decision rule for when to choose this tool over an alternative. This is clear usage guidance for the main scenario (move/rename) and names the relevant alternative.

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