move_note

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: shared notes/destinations are rejected, the operation is native (not a copy+delete emulation), and a fresh revision token is mandatory — useful failure-mode information.

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 short sentences with the verb front-loaded and no filler; each sentence adds a distinct constraint. The adverb 'natively' is the only mildly opaque wording.

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 destructive, non-idempotent move with five undocumented parameters, the description covers refusals and the no-fallback guarantee, and the output schema handles return values. It still leaves open whether destinationFolderId must pre-exist, how cross-account moves interact with 'within an account', and what happens to the source on failure.

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 0% across five required params, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at noteId ('one note'), accountId ('within an account'), expectedRevision ('fresh expectedRevision' as a concurrency token) and the two destination params ('destinations'), but never explains revision format or the account/destinationAccountId relationship.

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 and resource (MOVE one note) plus its scope (within an account, natively/atomically). The phrase 'No copy/delete fallback' implicitly separates it from a create_note+delete_note composition, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

'Shared notes and destinations are refused' is an explicit when-not condition, and 'using a fresh expectedRevision' states a precondition for success. No alternative tool is named for cases where the move is refused, which keeps it short of a 5.

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