remarkable_move

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-destructive, non-read-only nature is known. The description adds some behavioral context (e.g., optional renaming) but doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error handling, stopping short of fully supplementing the annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the XML-like tags add minor verbosity; a plain text version could be slightly more concise.

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 tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers essential use cases, parameter roles, and examples. It lacks details on error conditions or input validation but is generally complete for typical usage scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter and its purpose: source is 'Current path,' destination is 'New parent folder path,' and new_name is 'Optional new name.' Examples further clarify usage. However, path format conventions could be more explicit, preventing a perfect score.

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 explicitly states 'Move or rename a document/folder on your reMarkable tablet,' which clearly defines the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remarkable_delete or remarkable_upload by indicating a non-destructive move/rename operation.

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 instructions provide clear usage scenarios, e.g., 'To rename without moving, set destination to the current parent folder' and 'To move without renaming, omit new_name.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or direct comparison to alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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