Move

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the action (move/reorder) but does not provide details on side effects, such as whether the move is reversible, whether existing child order is affected, or whether permissions are required. It also doesn't mention what happens if parentId is omitted or if the index is out of bounds. This is a moderate disclosure, but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's dual purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and the two scenarios. No redundant words or filler. It earns its place by being informative without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain the behavior when index or parentId are omitted (though schema hints 'omit to append/stay'), nor does it describe return values or error scenarios. Given the moderate parameter count and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete; an agent might need to experiment or rely on schema details for edge cases.

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 67%: the schema documents 'index' and 'parentId' with descriptions, but the 'id' parameter has no description. The description adds context by explaining the overall purpose (moving to another folder or reordering), which helps interpret the parameters. However, it does not add detailed semantics beyond the schema, such as what 'index' exactly means in relation to the destination folder's children. Since schema covers most parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a node to another folder, or reorder it within the same folder.' It specifies the resource (node) and the two primary use cases (cross-folder move and reordering). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like bookmarks_create or bookmarks_remove, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bookmarks_update, which could also modify a node's location. Overall, the purpose is clear and action-oriented.

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 implies when to use the tool (for moving or reordering bookmarks) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For instance, it doesn't indicate that bookmarks_update might be used for other attribute changes, or that bookmarks_remove is for deletion. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the primary use case, though explicit exclusions would improve the guidance.

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