Move Folder

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description still adds real substance: it discloses that every inbound link is rewritten vault-wide and that unrepaired links surface in failed_links, i.e. partial-failure semantics. It stops short of stating irreversibility or whether a failed rewrite leaves the vault in a half-moved state.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The colon appositive 'rename for a whole folder' gives the agent a one-glance mental model, and the failed_links sentence earns its place by flagging partial failure.

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 destructive two-parameter move, the description covers scope, the vault-wide link-rewriting consequence, and failure reporting, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It could go further on ordering/atomicity and what happens to a folder already at the destination, but nothing essential for a correct call is 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented with examples, including the merge-into-existing-folder behavior for new_dir. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 folder) plus the scope ('and everything under it') and the key side effect (rewriting every link into it across the vault). The gloss 'rename for a whole folder' cleanly separates it from the sibling `rename`, which acts on a single note.

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 'rename for a whole folder' implies the boundary against `rename` and `write`, but usage is only implied — there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' or warning about when a move is inappropriate (e.g. moving into a descendant). Guidance exists but requires inference.

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