eda_dmt_folder_move_folder_to_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the function returns a boolean ('是否移动成功') but does not explain side effects, what happens on failure (e.g., partial moves), whether it is synchronous, or potential error conditions. The signature implies it's a mutation, but the description lacks behavioral context such as whether the move is reversible or if it affects related entities.

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 concise and includes the signature, a one-line Chinese summary, and a return description. However, the structure is slightly disorganized: the signature and return are on the same line, then the Chinese summary, then 'returns' repetition. It is compact but could be more readable with clear separation and front-loading of the core purpose. The mixed-language content may also reduce clarity for an English-focused agent.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and the schema is minimal (generic args array). The description provides only the signature and return type, but lacks: what a successful move means, error/exception behavior, constraints (e.g., cannot move to descendant folder), and how the optional 'parentFolderUuid' interacts with the current parent. Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, mutation), this is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke it without risking incorrect behavior.

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?

The input schema only describes a generic 'args' array and 'windowId', providing no per-parameter detail. The description compensates by listing the official signature: teamUuid (string), folderUuid (string), parentFolderUuid (optional string), and the return type. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explain what each UUID represents (e.g., source vs. destination folder) or the semantics of 'parentFolderUuid' as the target location. Schema coverage is 100% in the sense that the args array is described, but the description only partially compensates for the lack of detailed parameter documentation.

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 operation: 'moveFolderToFolder' with Chinese '移动文件夹' (move folder). It identifies the resource (folder) and the action (move to folder). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling move tools like eda_dmt_project_move_project_to_folder, though the name itself is specific enough for a folder operation. A dedicated textual distinction would have pushed it to 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives the function signature and return type. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., team UUID, folder UUID requirements) or when moving a folder is appropriate compared to other folder operations like create/delete/modify. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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