Moves a page to a new parent within the same collective, promoting it if the new parent is a leaf.
Move a page to a new parent within the same collective. If the new parent is a leaf, it is promoted first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Position among the target parent's children (0 = first). Omit to use the server default. | |
| pageId | Yes | ||
| collectiveId | Yes | ||
| newParentPageId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Input schema / properties / indexAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Position among the target parent's children (0 = first). Omit to use the server default.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the leaf promotion behavior, which is a significant side effect not covered by annotations. This extra context is valuable and goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe other potential effects like child reordering or permissions.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by a key behavioral detail. There is no fluff or redundant information.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and an edge case, but it omits return values, error scenarios, and potential side effects on children or ordering. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
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 only 25% (only 'index' has a description). The description does not elaborate on pageId, collectiveId, or newParentPageId, nor does it clarify their semantics beyond their names. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but no additional meaning is added.
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 verb (move), the resource (a page), and the scope (within the same collective). It also includes a specific behavioral nuance (leaf promotion), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool move_page_to_collective that moves across collectives.
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 phrase 'within the same collective' implies the tool is not for cross-collective moves, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or provide an exclusion. The context is clear enough to infer, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this tool over move_page_to_collective or set_subpage_order.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.