eda_dmt_project_move_project_to_folder

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation moves a project and returns a boolean success indicator, but it does not mention side effects such as removing the project from its previous location, permission requirements, failure conditions, or the meaning of an omitted folderUuid. For a mutating operation this is a notable gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: signature first, then a one-line Chinese translation, then the return type meaning. Every line earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple move operation, the signature and return type cover the basic call shape. However, the optional folderUuid behavior is unexplained, and no usage context distinguishes this tool from eda_dmt_project_move_project. An agent can likely invoke the tool but may not know the correct semantics when folderUuid is absent.

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 provides a generic args array with empty item definitions and a windowId field, so the function signature in the description is the main source of parameter meaning. It adds the parameter names, types, and order (projectUuid: string, folderUuid?: string), which is essential for constructing the positional args array correctly. It stops short of explaining where the UUIDs come from or the semantics of folderUuid being optional.

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: "moveProjectToFolder(projectUuid, folderUuid)" plus the Chinese "移动工程到文件夹" (move project to folder). This identifies the verb, resource, and target. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling eda_dmt_project_move_project, but the 'to folder' target is sufficiently specific.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_dmt_project_move_project or eda_dmt_folder_move_folder_to_folder. The description repeats the API signature but provides no context about prerequisites, when moving to a folder is appropriate, or what happens when folderUuid is omitted.

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