Move a note to another folder by name or ID; moving it to Recently Deleted deletes it, and moving it back restores it.
Move a note to another folder (name or id). Moving to "Recently Deleted" is the same as delete_note; moving a trashed note back to a normal folder restores it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| folder | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: deletion and restore are both achieved through this tool, and folder accepts a name or id. It omits permission requirements, error behavior for missing folders, and any return 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?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the behavioral caveats. Every clause carries information about tool selection or side effects.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious semantics (destructive equivalence, restore behavior, folder identifier flexibility). Only parameter-level detail on 'id' and failure modes are missing.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'folder' (accepts name or id) but says nothing about 'id', the required note identifier, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 a note to another folder') with the target parameter format implied. It also differentiates behavior against delete_note, so an agent can tell it apart from that sibling, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with move_event or duplicate_event.
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 names the alternative operation ('Moving to "Recently Deleted" is the same as delete_note') and clarifies the inverse case (moving a trashed note back restores it), which routes the agent between delete, move, and restore. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when...' statement or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.